What's Important

I ran ten miles this morning, and it really seemed fairly easy except for being unusually warm for early January.  This was the last longish run of training for the Charleston Marathon next weekend.  Those who've run a marathon will appreciate how good this last semi-long run feels.  Today, it didn't matter how I felt, or how fast or slow I ran.  Today's run was simply cover the distance, get from point A to point B without hurting something in the process.

What lies behind the run today made it so seemingly easy to do and relatively unimportant.  In the previous four months I've run nearly 500 miles, including a half marathon in Spartanburg,  three fifteen mile runs, an eighteen mile run, and three twenty mile runs.  I've run after dark in the evening, before the sun has come up, in the rain, when there's frost on the pumpkin, and when it's been so warm that I've shed my shirt before I've finished.  No, I'm not in the best shape of my life, but I'm plenty ready to complete a marathon.  All that is left between now and lacing up the shoes next Saturday morning is simply to get in a couple of very short easy runs, and most importantly eat and sleep well so I'm rested and healthy.

My last marathon experience was eleven months ago in Myrtle Beach.  It was torturous, and quite frankly embarrassing to me.  I wasn't fit enough, rested enough, and the weather was much too warm.  On that day I willed myself not to stop beginning at the half way point.  It's not unusual for the last couple of miles to be a "death march," on that day eleven months ago the last ten miles were a "death march."  That day eleven months ago has remained in the back of my mind with nearly every step this fall and winter.  That failure has fueled my fire so to speak.

One week from now I'll be lying in the bed in the motel room listening to the aching of my hips, knees, feet, plus muscles I seldom know I have.  Even though I'm in pretty decent shape, there's always a chance that I'll fall apart next Saturday- come up lame with injury or just plain have a bad run.  But even if I do fall on my face, at the end I'll still be in the bed in the motel room with some Aleve and ice packs.

Within the last few days one of my best friends was diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor.  He's a fellow pastor and runner, and we've run together many times.  But, this week he began the most important race of all.  I've been looking at the run next Saturday as being really important, but it suddenly seems so very trivial.  Win, lose, or draw, I'll still be okay after the run next weekend.  For my friend, though this race is life and death.  Run well my friend, be strong in the Lord, and know you're in my prayers.

I Hate Christmas!

Now there's something you would not expect to hear a Christian minister to say.  This very true statement obviously requires explanation.  It began in early October when a hospital I visited had the Christmas portions of Messiah playing through their piped in background music.  Even if it's really early, at least it's glorious music I thought.  The displays of ornaments, artificial trees, lights, etc. in Lowe's in late October I could almost grasp because folks may want to begin buying that stuff early to avoid too much holiday rush.

A couple of things pushed me over the edge, however.  Hearing "Walking in a Winter Wonderland" on the week before Thanksgiving as I scrolled through the radio stations in the car began it.  A beautiful warm November day over a week before the turkeys hide to avoid becoming dinner, and I have to hear snowy Christmas songs?  Churches too often buy into this by cranking up "Joy to the World," and "O Come All Ye Faithful" on the Sunday after Thanksgiving.   The cumulative result of this is that Christmas Day is largely anticlimactic.  When the last of the presents is pulled out from under the tree, and we've had our nice dinner, it's all over before it ever really began.

The other, and more serious, thing that did it was watching the news on Thanksgiving Day.  There it is the morning of Thanksgiving Day and folks are camped in line in front of some big-box store to get in early when they open the doors for the "black Friday" sales.  What is ostensibly a Christian holiday has become something like this where folks pass up family time and traditions to save a few dollars on a TV they don't need!  Then when the malls and stores opened late Thursday night or in the wee hours of Friday morning we were greeted with stories of folks shooting each other or macing each other in a race to get to X-Boxes first.  So this is what the cultural holiday has done to the birth of the one called "Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, and Prince of Peace?"

No one cherishes the birth of the Savior more than I do.  I confess that on Christmas Eve, I'll be singing "Hark the Herald Angels Sing" louder than I probably should.  Most of the time I don't really know what I want for Christmas, but I'll move heaven and earth to make sure that the kids have a good time.  What I hate is the fact that this most cherished day has become an occasion for pure hedonism and self-indulgence.  Call me scrooge right now if you want, but I'm not buying in.  This year, hold off on the great hymns and carols for a couple more weeks so that you can really enjoy them that last week of December.  Spend just a little less than you usually do this time around.  I'm not saying to scrap gift-giving, but hold back only fifty or a hundred dollars.  Then take the money you save and get a present for the kid next door who doesn't have much.  Give it away to provide food or water to drought stricken areas of the world.  Gee, which is the better way to honor the incarnation of the Son of the Almighty God:  to camp in front of a store for the opportunity to save a few dollars on a TV and pepper spray the poor soul who reaches for it at the same time; or to spend that time with your family and do something for someone in need?  I rest my case.

We Don't Need You

I've heard people from time to time tell others something like this, "you ought to come to our church we really need you."  Many of the people that I've heard say this are faithful Christians and church members.  I also respect that they say this from the best of intentions.  In one instance, I know that it refers to a church that does desperately need new members.  However, "we need you," is one of the worst slogans for evangelism I can imagine.

From a practical standpoint, "please join our church, we need you," is more likely to drive someone off than it is to induce them to join.  This sort of phrase invests all sorts of hope that this person or family will somehow fix a church that is broken, will somehow save a church that is dying.  I doubt that anyone that a church would actually want to have will join if he or she is going to be looked at as some sort of savior/hero figure.  The person who would like to join understanding that he or she will be a hero figure is very likely to be the very last person that a small struggling church actually does need in membership.

From a theological perspective, the "we need you" slogan for evangelism is equally lacking.  That phrase is inherently self-serving.  "We need you" to teach adult Sunday school, to chair this committee or that committee.  "We need you" to put a nice offering into the collection plate on Sunday.  "We need you" to be a warm body in our otherwise cold sanctuary.  The last time I checked, the Gospel is about what Jesus does for us, and living the faith is about what we do for others.  If that is really true, can a church long live with such a self-serving approach to evangelism?

It is very true that healthy churches grow and seek to bring in new members, particularly people with no prior faith background.  This is part of the evangelical DNA of the faith.  Christianity is an inherently evangelical faith, by prescription and description.  The healthy approach to getting the visitor to join, to getting your neighbor to visit must be rooted in something more than the need for their check in the plate or the need for another person to be occupying space in worship.  The healthy approach should be rooted in trying to draw the other person into something.  If the person does not come from a background in the faith, he or she needs us the church to introduce the life-giving grace of Christ.  In that instance they really need the church, and not the other way around.  The church can seek to draw others in to the missions in which it participates.  Believers who are new in town will be much more likely to join in where there are missions and ministries in which they can get involved, in which they can serve others.  At rock bottom, in either case others are being drawn into something bigger than they are, into the work of God in the world.

Boogity, Boogity, Boogity!

Rev. Joe Nelms delivered an interesting pre-race invocation before a NASCAR Nationwide series race Saturday.  At an event like this, there will typically be an invocation at which the minister delivering will thank God for the beautiful weather and the freedoms we enjoy in the U.S.  The prayer will include petitions for the safety of the drivers and the fans as well.  Rev. Nelms wasn't content Saturday to offer up such a typical prayer.  He thanked God "for the Fords, the Dodges, the Chevrolets, and the Toyotas..." for the"Sunoco racing fuel," and for his "smokin' hot wife."  He ended the prayer with "in Jesus name, boogity, boogity, boogity, Amen!"

Of course this has created a lot of stir amongst radio and TV talking heads and on the internet.  I'm loathe to be openly critical of another minister, but I guess I'll have to make an exception in this case.  I can't speak for Rev. Nelms' intentions with the prayer, and I have no knowledge of his ministry in the local church, so I can't address those.  I did hear the prayer and will surely sound off on it. 

The prayer surely sounded like what Jesus mentioned in Matthew 6 when he talked about heaping up empty phrases as the gentiles do, for nearly the entire thing was empty phrases.  Much worse though, what was offered up as a prayer could have been mistaken for a comic skit from a stand up comedian.  The effect is that he made light of prayer itself which is serious business if we actually think of prayer as a communication with almighty God.  In my opinion, this is an affront to God's honor, and just as seriously is a detriment to our evangelical witness.  If he can't take his faith seriously when praying, how can the non-Christian or nominally Christian there be encouraged to take the faith seriously.  Just speaking for myself here, I wouldn't want to have to explain this prayer to Jesus.

Common Ground

If you've read the previous musings on atonement theory, you'll remember that the most common ways Christians have looked at this topic are known as:  the classical or ranson theory, moral influence, and substitutionary atonement.  Now I'd like to muddy the waters even more, before hopefully providing a clear path out of this where believers can live peacefully with each other without hurling theological handgrenades.

In addition to the three views of atonement that looked at earlier, there have been any number of others.  In fact, one former member of the Conference Board of Ordained Ministry was well-known for reportedly asking ministerial candidates in interviews to list seven or eight different theories.  The great theologian Anselm of Canterbury was famous for promoting a theory known as "satisfaction."  In the early 20th century Gustav Aulen wrote of atonement in terms of victory of sin and death in Christus Victor.  The notion of atonement as victory over the forces of evil and death is very powerful to me and provides great sermon fodder.  To add another to the mix there's the governmental theory proposed by the early 17th century philosopher Hugo Grotius.  Additionally, within the realm of substitutionary atonement one can easily separate atonement as sacrifice from penal substitution.  In short, beginning to discuss atonement quickly becomes a muddled mess.

Probably the biggest difficulty people have with atonement is that their view of atonement isn't big enough.  This works itself out in at least two ways.  First, atonement in the Bible encompasses all creation, though we don't fully know how this works itself out.  Paul describes all creation groaning and being in bondage awaiting being set free in Romans 8.  John, the author of Revelation describes a new heaven and a new earth.  Jesus said that he came to make all things new.  This has enormous implications for how we view creation and resurrection.

Second, for many their view of atonement isn't large enough because they tend to pick just one theory and discount every other.  Every theory is flawed because, though there is some truth in all of them, it is impossible to describe in human language what happened on the cross.  Human attempts to describe it are like the proverbial blindfolded men who try to describe an elephant.  I think another problem here is that different views of the atonement can resonate differerently with people depending on their background.  We often tend to make our own experiences normative for everyone, and this goes for atonement as well.  Those with a deeply stained past may appreciate susbtitutionary atonement because it reminds them that the guilt for sin is taken by someone else.  Another, who comes from the bondage of addiction can celebrate knowing that Christ has redeemed and purchased freedom.  The believer who can't think of a time he or she didn't know Christ may naturally tend to look at his work as an example to follow. 

In summary, don't be afraid to expand your notion of atonement, and be willing to understand that if the greatest minds of Christendom have come to differing understandings of atonement then we should avoid being too dogmatic about it ourselves.  There are things in the Christian faith where the historic teachings of the church are in unity, and much to our discomfort atonement isn't one of them. 

He Took Our Place

For many of you who read these ramblings the idea of atonement I critique today will be familiar.  Love it or hate it, most Protestants have heard the language of substitutionary atonement more than any other.  If you are among the more conservative Protestants, this is probably the language that comes to mind first when you think of atonement.

In very condensed form substitutionary atonement works like this.  Jesus is born of a virgin, and leads an absolutely sinless life.    Because he is sinless and perfect Jesus alone is able to atone for human sin by taking the guilt/penalty for the sins of the world.  In essence Jesus becomes a substitute for us.  Both the virgin birth and sinless life are essential for this model of atonement because the atoning sacrifice must be perfect in order to bear sin for everyone else.  Since he bore the penalty of sin, we don't bear it any more and we have peace with God.  Typically, substitutionary atonement is thought of in penal terms were Jesus bears a punishment in our place.  It can also be used in sacrificial terms where he is a sacrifice on our behalf, in this case he becomes the "Lamb of God," and is the culmination and perfect fulfillment of the sacrificial system of the Old Testament.

If you're not really up on all this fancy, theoretical atonement talk here are some of the terms and concepts that are hallmarks of substitutionary atonement.  Sacrifice, wrath, blood, propitiation, dying instead of us not just for us are all integral parts of this theory.  Thinking about the framework of this theory it's not surprising that proponents of substitutionary atonement tend to emphasize the pain and agony of the cross more than proponents of other theories.  The language of substitutionary atonement is commonplace in hymnody as well.  It is found in numerous hymns about the cross such as "O Sacred Head Now Wounded," "My Hope Is Built," "Ah, Holy Jesus," "Rock of Ages," and "The Old Rugged Cross."  Though not a hymn about the cross as such, "It Is Well With My Soul," one of the most powerful hymns of our faith, has a very subsitutionary line- "my sin Oh the bliss of this glorious thought, my sin not in part but the whole, is nailed to the cross and I bear it no more, praise the Lord, praise the Lord Oh my soul!"

As with all of these theories of atonement there is scriptural warrant for substitutionary atonement.  To name just a few places:  the suffering servant passage of Isaiah 53, 2 Corinthians 5, Galatians 2, 1 Peter 2 and 3 all use strong substitutionary language.  Including sacrificial themes of atonement with this, and we find that we can add the strong sacrificial language of Hebrews and nearly the whole book of Revelation where Jesus is referred to as "Lamb" twenty seven times.

Now, to critique this.  I'll begin with a personal recollection.  The first time I preached an Easter sermon I was in seminary, but hadn't been taught anything about atonement theory yet.  In my background I knew only to think of atonement in substitutionary terms.  As I wrestled with the Easter sermon then, I discovered what I later learned in class.  This particular view of the atonement doesn't account for the resurrection.  If the penalty is paid on the cross and because of that we have life, where does the resurrection fit in?  This isn't the only criticism of this model of atonement.  At times this view of the atonement suffers from the language of its own proponents.  To hear some proponents describe it, God sits in Heaven waiting to throw all us poor humans into the fiery pit with the great cosmic "Smite" button until Jesus takes the "smiting" for us.  Distorted like this, this view of atonement can lead one to think that God is eager to condemn, and also to view the Father and the Son as being at enmity with each other.  Additionally, many modern critics dislike this view of the atonement because it emphasizes the blood and pain of the cross.  By itself, penal substitutionary atonement is unsatisfactory in my opinion.

Let's not totally dispense with this model of the atonement, however.  There's too much language that points to it in the Bible.  Additionally, it is unwise to try to clean up the cross too much.  A sterilized, sanitized cross can't say much to a world that continually asks "where's God?" amid the ugliness and strife of this fallen world.  Understanding the cross as what it was, a brutal instrument of torture, humiliation, and execution allows us to understand that God can be present in the midst of the horrors that we can sometimes see in the modern world. 

Now that I've poked more than a few holes in these three, in a few days a more comprehensive look at the atonement will arise from the marinate.

Our Example

One of the more unfortunate aspects of discussion of atonement in the current culture is that it has become polarized.  It is difficult now to separate this academic discussion from the emotional hand grenades that have been lobbed back and forth between liberals and conservatives for years.  I hope that you who read this can take a look at some of this different atonement language again.  None of them is sufficient all by itself, just as none of them is totally without merit or warrant.  In this week's entry and in next week's, I will critique the favorite atonement theories for liberals and then for conservatives.  I guess that if today's post doesn't step on your toes, that next week's will.

As the ransom theory began to fade in popularity in the middle ages, Peter Abelarde made famous the idea that Jesus is primarily an example for us.  Focusing primarily on the love of God, he believed that God's love was so great that he could forgive without anything being done to make up for the fact that his law had been broken.  Jesus' death according to this theory does nothing to change our standing before God objectively.  It is not a ransom, a sacrifice, or a substitute for us.  Instead, it affects us subjectively because it moves us to greater compassion, because it moves us to repentance, because it shows us what true love really looks like.  When we look at him we are moved to follow him. 

Contrary to what some more conservative folks would say, there is plenty of scriptural warrant for looking at Jesus as our example.  In John 13, Jesus gave the disciples a "new command" and washed their feet.  In Ephesians 5, Paul said to imitate God, in 1 Peter 2 we are told that Christ left us an example so that we "follow in his steps."  2 Corinthians 5 tell us that Christ's love compels us to live for him not for ourselves.

This theory is reflected in several ways in our "church language."  Those who adhere to this theory of the atonement frequently will refer to Jesus' life, death, and resurrection in describing how atonement works.  We can look at how he lived his life (ministry with the dispossessed, the marginalized, the "outs" of society) and not just how he died.  The WWJD bracelets that were so popular a few years ago are a reflection of it.  We also see it very clearly in the great hymn "When I Survey the Wondrous Cross," and to a lesser extent we see it in the equally classic old hymn "Be Thou My Vision."

Now to play the critic.  There are several serious flaws with this theory of atonement.  First, if there is nothing objectively being done on the cross, how can it be an example of anything?  Its ability to affect us emotionally is linked to what it does for us objectively.  In fact, the 1 Peter passage I referred to also uses other atonement language as well.  One article I read offered this assessment.  If a someone dies saving a drowning person we are moved.  If, on the other hand, someone jumps into the raging river with the drowning person and just drowns simply to identify with the victim we look at it as a senseless act.  Likewise, Jesus' death can move us only if it actually does something.  Another quite serious flaw with it, is that it doesn't take the issue of sin seriously enough.  As a theology professor of mine said, if our problem is simply one of the mind where can imitate him and be straightened out, we could do just as well by going to a good counselor.  Additionally, making Jesus purely an example to follow could actually lead to making him a Law, inserting an unintended legalism.  Lastly, this theory of atonement, left alone cannot account for the resurrection.  It's actually an unnecessary add on.

I caution you against tossing this theory into the ash heap though.  Even though this theory is insufficient by itself, we cannot dispense with it.  Is there any better guide to how to live than to simply try to live as Jesus did?  Did he not instruct his disciples to follow his example in the upper room scene in John's Gsopel?  Was not John Newton (author of the hymn "Amazing Grace") who was a slave trader turned Anglican minister converted by reading the devotional classic "On the Imitation of Christ" that urges the reader to follow Jesus as an example?  Is it possible to look at the cross of Christ without being moved to repentance?