Just one small problem...

While I haven't been posting on Heim's book, I have been reading it thoroughly. Quite creative. One thing he mentions is the ability of scapegoating violence to quell retaliatory violence and thereby to build society (this is Rene Girard). The suggestion by Heim is that the scapegoat mechanism is the product of humanity (p. 196, explicitly). As a result, God is not the one demanding sacrifice, but necessarily suffers it to show it for what it is. The critique against Girard is that he has an "ontology of violence": the fabric with which the world is made is violent. This might be a valid criticism against Girard, but I don't think it is a defeat of his thought. Instead, I think it is possible for a Girardian social theory to be correct and for there to be an ontology of peace. The implication, though, is that Girard's theory (sacrificial scapegoating violence) has behind it...God. Here's how it works out: Violence is not part of God's created order. Conspicuously absent from creation narrative of Genesis is violence. Violence is not necessary, it does not propel, it is not used by God for his good creation. This means that we would not expect a Girardian social theory to be correct, unless it is the gracious act of God to "change the rules" of his creation. What if violence becomes unavoidable in a fallen world, and rather than simply letting it deteriorate into violence, God provides a sacrificial scapegoat to quell violence? As a result of sin, humans now blame and kill; but God changes the ontology that instead of pure deterioration of society, as one would expect, that the very sinful actions of humanity would cut themselves down. In other words, it is the gracious act of God that violence should stop violence--if imperfectly. And really, isn't this the narratival paradox we have come to expect from God?

Interestingly, the first violence recorded in Scripture is by God against the animals, where he creates skin clothing for Adam and Eve (Gen. 3:21); their choice, oddly enough, was fig leaves (3:7). Is it not possible that God's redemptive plan could involve actions he would later act against, using the whole drama as disclosure for the problem of sin--that it leads to violence, that he changes things so that violence stops violence, and that he would propose a better way in the end? I think this follows the line of thinking that grace follows the law, but that the law remains no less a gift. Violence is no longer necessary to stop violence after the death of Christ, but this does not negate the fact that God may have caused violence to stop violence, against all odds....

Bad OT Justifications for War

In talking with people about the Iraq war who trot out God's violence in the OT as God's support of violence and subsequently (obviously!) the war on terror, I have just one observation:

If the appealed to picture of war in the Old Testament is God-ordained holy war (which it is), and if the war against terror is to defeat the holy war of Militant/Jihadist/Radical Islam, then it makes no moral sense to appeal to the holy war of Israel as God's support of violence against another form of holy war. We cannot critique the Jihadist and appeal to our own holy war without cutting off the branch of the tree we're sitting in. Please find a better appeal.

It's the skepticism, stupid

Yesterday I was reading Robert Price's blog. He is a member of the 'prestigious' (or, podunkist--let the two who have ears to hear, hear) "Jesus Seminar." I came across a post on Archetyping. In it he goes through the usual song and dance of how the gospels contain elements of myth and have ties to other primitive religions, yaddi, yaddi, yadda. All of that is, of course, true. The story of Jesus of Nazareth does have similarities and parallels to myths (birth accompanied by star, kings coming to visit, virgin birth, death, healing, body and blood as food, etc.). (On a side note, what I think Price and some others miss--Rob Bell included--is that resurrection is different from life after death; Wright's tome on resurrection lays out the distinction and important difference.) The conclusion that Price, along with other skeptics, come to is that the gospels are fabricated stories and, as a result, not true. The problem is that that just doesn't follow. Why would the gospels not incorporate elements of other stories to help give shape to the story of Jesus? And why, similar to what C.S. Lewis argued, would we not expect that the story of the Son of the God whose Spirit works in mysterious ways would not be similar to the religious thought that permeates the longing of other people(s)?

This morning something hit me. The mythical elements of the Gospels are not the devastating argument against Christianity. They are just the (sad) form that the real issue takes. And what is that real issue? Skepticism. Here's a quote from Price's blog, in reference to the new creation expected by Christians:

"To tell you the truth, I just can't buy this [hope for new creation]. I don't think it's even a good idea. Get real, folks. This is the world. It contains death because we are organic, mortal beings. We ought to make the best of it. There is ecstatic glory in this mortal life, though sooner or later we must fall under tragedy's scythe. And, contra some New Age gurus, it does no good simply to wish tragedy away. It is real. There is never going to be some other world of sweetness and light to replace this one."

There's just no believing the Christian story if you have no space left for hope and have guarded yourself against the risk of disappointment. No wonder Jesus preached for those who had ears to hear.

Film and Faith

I have a question, one that just formulated in my head recently, although it has been running around in there for a while.

Which movie's content better models Christian Scripture? Is it:
A. The movie without swearing that presents violence in flippant, almost comical fashion; or,
B. The movie with countless F-words and serious presentation of violence.

Now, this does not ask which movie a Christian should watch (it could be both or neither). It is which one better mirrors Christian Scripture.

I have loaded the question deliberately to make a point (one being made by Heim in SFS): The brutality of Scripture is not hidden; it is obvious.

SFS: Introduction and Chapter 1

Not alot of time today, but I'm getting the bare bones down here.

SUMMARY:
Heim's work is concerned with the cross, which is only one aspect of Christ's work and its ability to deal with interpersonal evil. Specifically, Heim's book addresses all of this with regard to one form of scapegoating (9). Heim sees the cross not as securing forgiveness, but as representative of it. The cross shows God's commitment, it does not "win" it.

The book takes on three parts:
1. Uncovering scapegoating violence throughout human history;
2. The passion narratives as telling the saving work of Jesus, but still affirming that his death should not have happened. (This works with different levels of the narratives.)
3. The story of the early church: How do communities function without sacrifice?

Heim's work focuses on the ability of God to establish a new community, not by continuing violence, but by stopping all forms of scapegoating and sacrifice.

In chapter 1, Heim raises many of the criticisms leveled against penal substitution and sacrificial atonement themes and also the pastoral benefits found in such atonement thinking in order to deal with them both. His book is a commitment to taking both positive and negative seriously and to wage a new way with both.


COMMENTARY:
In a rush today, so not lots to add. The book is cleverly written--pastoral in tone. It is not polemical (unlike Weaver) and it is creative (like Boersma). If you are not familiar with the work of anthropologist Rene Girard, you will become so as this work is heavily indebted to him.

Review Posts: Saved from Sacrifice

I am starting a new book today that I think will be interesting and provocative. It is called Saved from Sacrifice: A Theology of the Cross (Eerdmans 2006)by S. Mark Heim. Here is where Heim is going and what he wants to do:

For Heim, the death of Christ isn't necessary because because of God, but because of humanity (xi). "Jesus didn't volunteer to get into God's justice machine. God volunteered to get into ours. God used our own sin to save us" (xi). This shows that Heim operates in a Girardian (will likely discuss this later, although see earlier blogs on Boersma) rubric of mimetic violence. His
theory is that God uses our system to save us and in bearing such sin, makes more obvious those who suffer such excluding sin. The language of "sacrifice, innocence, guilt, punishment, substitution, and blood" tells the truth "about our situation and what God does to liberate us..." (xii). Summing up, "Sacrifice is the disease we have. Christ's death is the test result we can't ignore, and at the same time an inoculation that sets loose a healing resistance. The cure is not more of the same" (xii). Heim's book, then, tries to explain the double-language about the cross, exemplified in the shedding of Christ's blood to end the shedding of blood.

What do you think of this rendering so far?

Sermon experiment reflections

Undoubtedly more reflections will come to mind as I process and have the input of people from yesterday. Here are my initial thoughts:

1. I was dead wrong about people not noticing a difference. I should stop being surprised at the insight of people when listening to God's word. They noticed the difference and mentioned it.

2. This type of sermon is much more 'uncontrollable.' I was surprised at how I was really "left out to dry" a bit at one point. I completely lost the story I was telling. I chalk this up a bit to lack of protein in my brain. Definitely need something substantial to keep my mind wired between services. But at a deeper level, I began to see the story that involves me preaching is the story God is telling, even in me preaching. This one is harder to explain, but undeniable in the moment.

3. Real life is what people need. STOP DIVORCING THE TEXT FROM REAL LIFE. I see how I do this unintentionally. I have explained on this blog before how I see principle-preaching doing just that. It's not that principles are bad things, or even strangers to the biblical story (although only one book is called 'Proverbs'). But life is not made up of principles; it's made up of people. And whenever someone asks me who I am, I never say, "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" or, to put it in sermon-ese, "Realize what God has given before striving for more." Now, those things are true in some sense, and I could definitely incorporate the second into a sermon. BUT, if change happens in relationships, and resurrection is the hope for ALL relationships, and preaching has to take resurrection form--taking seriously death, but providing hope!--then the sermon has got to incorporate transformational elements. Modeling transformation via the story of the sermon is the closest I've come to seeing that happen.

4. I have never prayed so much for a sermon. And never needed to pray so much for one.

5. A stranger would not have known what was going on. But I think they would be more intrigued to return. I think that's the way it should be.

Sermon experiment

I am trying something new on Sunday. For me, it is a significant change of declaring God's word. For most hearers, there likely won't be any change. In other words, they won't notice the difference. Here's what I'm doing: Rather than exegeting Scripture and encouraging the work of implication for the life of our community and the lives of those in our community, I am exegeting my life and implying the work of God through one passage at different times in my story. The goal is to encourage people to work out of their lives the word of God at different points. The challenge at the end, though, is the important part: Tell the story, share your exegesis of life with others. Now we're starting to read, both our lives and Scripture, communally.

Please pray for Sunday.

Infant Baptism and Systemic Good

It is easy to see the systemic nature of evil. Those abused as children often abuse; sons and daughters of alcoholics often become alcoholics; companies that do not treat employees well often do not have avenues available for change to happen. Systems can operate in ways that become self-perpetuating.

In a good creation that reproduces and creates, and lives under the stewardship of a race told to be fruitful and multiply, one would expect that evil need not corner the market on the nature of systems. One would expect that systems could produce good, as well.

Baptism is not only the sign of entrance into God's church, it is enaction of it, as well. Those believers who have joined the church, God's discipleship system that is neither cold or abrasive, but warm and caring (at least meant to be), know that it is in this community that God has changed them. Infant baptism is the faithful act that good can be transmitted by God's Spirit through his community. The act of baptism is the faithful act that the church can impart God's salvation, by his Spirit, the whole way through the child's life. Not only does it believe this, it is an act that reminds the church of its responsibility to pass on good systemically.

Does Revelation adjudicate?

Postmodernism has chastened the arrogant claims of modernity for complete knowledge. In the end, it has said that beliefs are community based, and there is no outside rationality by which one can adjudicate truth claims. I belief this is a tacit denial of Revelation and the Incarnation.

I believe that knowledge is formed in communities. To say there is no 'outside rationality,' however, is not to engage in epistemic humility, but to undermine the fundamental necessity of a self-revealing God. To deny outside rationality is to deny any act of God to reveal who he really is; in essence, if there is no adjudication, then the Incarnation is being denied. This is not an arrogant claim because the narrative of Israel and Incarnation is not a narrative developed by humanity for the purposes of humanity--"Accept our narrative because your hope is found in it," ala modernity; it is a humble claim because God has created this narrative and has acted in it. We are not the writers and the way we tell the story being written should reveal the humility that is inherent in its claims.

Either one can appeal to Revelation for adjudication, or one loses the doctrine of the Incarnation.

Shallow ecclesiology

The problem with believing the narrative the politics is the biggest source of good (god?) in a nation is that its faith falters under the heat. In the recent turmoil of Ted Haggard, we get the picture loud and clear. What is the most telling of the whole story is those who distance themselves from Haggard: the White House, Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson. Apparently realpolitik runs deeper than the ekklesia of Jesus Christ.

Two spiritual insights?

Two thoughts that have been stirring in my head of late. Neither are new, but both are meaningful for me in different ways.

First, adding rules to the commandment(s) to love God and to love our neighbour creates a different god made in our image. But love is a tricky thing--rather complex at times. Sometimes we need to flesh out what loving God and loving our neighbour means with clarifications. It is a very fine line indeed between adding rules and expounding on love of neighbour. That fine line, however, gives enough space for massive amounts of spiritual abuse. Do we give up on love? Do we stop adding commentary? Neither: both would be too easy. We live in humility, admitting we may have created a different god and in that creation abused those over whom we have influence, and speaking with caution to those who are listening.

Second, having expectations of myself that are so high that they cannot be reached is a denial of God's grace. Condemning myself for not meeting expectations that are too high means that I have put myself under a master other than a gracious Father. Believing the lie that we should always look out for ourselves because we know what's best for us, we put ourselves in a compromised position of serving the subtle, demanding, overtaxing, and unfair boss of self. That boss never gives a sabbath.

News on Mary and Tim Perry

Two cool things to note:
1. Here's an interview with my brother Tim Perry on his new book Mary for Evangelicals (IVP: 2006). (And may I add: Tim Perry on CBN???)

2. Here's the link to the new book. While I have read much of the book in ms form, I will review it here when I get a free copy! (Which I was told I would receive....Crusty Guy ain't so Crusty, I guess.... You should also read the interview. Crusty Guy is actually a not-so-old softie towards the end.)

Congrats, Tim! Well done Rachel, Calvin and Sara Jane, too, who contributed to the writing by living in a different setting for a whole year and endured some tough schedules for some of the research time.

A few things

First, great question being asked by Scot McKnight: "I’m not asking if you think Genesis 6–8 is mythological or historical, but whether you think the evangelical/traditional view of Scripture and its inspiration is flexible enough to handle mythic elements in the Bible?"

Second, great quote from Stan Hauerwas on the megachurch phenomenon, as compared to the Roman Catholic Church being the cultural center of activity in the medieval period: "The problem with churches like Willow Creek is not that they are the center of so many activities but that those activities do not require for their intelligibility the Mass." (p. 270, n. 11 of A Better Hope, chapter entitled, "Worship, Evangelism, Ethics.") I'm still thinking about what I think about the statement.

Three, I've been making some inroads with my neighbour. Please pray for God to continue building bridges and generating good conversations!

Rules for political-theological discussion with me

I have developed a few rules that must now be respected whenever we are talking politics.

1. Everyone thinks the media is biased to the other side. Tut-tut-tut. Everyone. Thinks. That.

2. Criticism of the Republican party does not mean that I am:
A. Pro-abortion
B. An America hater
C. A Communist (heck, it doesn't even mean I'm a Democrat!)

3. If you use common sense, I will likely not count it very authoritative.

4. If Christians are divided about an issue, at least admit that maybe it's because the issue is complicated.

5. If you would speak it in the spiritual realm, allow it to mean something politically, too. (i.e., "Jesus breaks down walls;" "Jesus loves everyone;" "Jesus is Lord.")

6. Realize that all leaders of political parties are extremely wealthy and most are divorced from the great unwashed. They are not likely the saints.