This series is by RJS
We have taken a hiatus in the series on Tim Kellers' book The Reason for God,
The Gospel of Christ â the good news â is wrapped up in the story of the cross. This story however causes a great deal of consternation in our western world. Why was sacrifice required? Why did Jesus die? Isnât the appeasement of the wrath of God best classed as divine child abuse --- a remnant of an older more primitive society?
To be fair, Keller never uses the term "wrath of God" in this chapter, and he casts the story of the atonement in terms that bear little resemblance to typical presentations of penal substitution. So what does he say?
First: Forgiveness always requires sacrifice. When we forgive we bear the consequence, the suffering, ourselves rather than demanding retribution. No one "just forgives" any grievous wrong. How much more then for God? God did not, then, inflict pain on someone else, but rather on the Cross absorbed the pain, violence, and evil of the world into himself. This was not just an example â but an ultimate act of forgiveness. Of course Keller does go a bit beyond this as well: â¦this is a God who becomes human and offers his own lifeblood in order to honor moral justice and merciful love so that some day he can destroy all evil without destroying us.p. 192
Second: Real love involves a personal exchange. More than this, genuine life-changing love requires substitutional sacrifice, benefiting the other at the expense (large or small) of ourselves. When the needs of the other are large the sacrificial cost â the expense â is also large. â¦how can God be a God of love if he does not become personally involved in suffering the same violence, oppression, grief, weakness, and pain that we experience? p. 195 The answer is that God can't â and the Christian story is that the God of love does become personally involved. God, in the place of ultimate power, reverses places with the marginalized, the poor, and the oppressed. p. 196
According to Keller the story of the cross involves forgiveness, sacrifice, substitution, justice, mercy, reversal, and identification. God for us. The act â the historical event â is the turning point in human history.
Of course this is not a popular view in our world today. Keller opens this chapter with a quote from Ghandi in An Autobiography
I could accept Jesus as a martyr, an embodiment of sacrifice, and a divine teacher. His death on the cross was a great example to the world, but that there was anything like a mysterious or miraculous virtue in it, my heart could not accept.
This leads to the key question from this chapter â what is the Story of the Cross? How would you describe the importance of the cross? Is the importance in example? in story? or is it more? What do you think of Keller's view of forgiveness and love involving exchange?
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
I agree with most of what you say and I agree that the word "miracle" implies a divide between the natural world and the supernatural (I prefer that word to unnatural). I agree with you in a sense that we see in creation "miracles" everyday that are part and parcel of the natural world and observable and explainable in rational terms. I think it is possible that all the "miracles" ascribed to Jesus' birth, life and death all have rational explanations. But I think it is important to a lot of people to believe in miracles that go beyond rational explanations, that most of the time God works within the rules of the universe, but occasionally He/She doesn't and in those rare times that God shows us His transcendence of the natural world the message he has for us is hugely important. A miracle is God saying, "This is really important. Please listen. I have turned the natural world on its head for a moment, so you will know that it is me talking." For a lot of people the "miracle" is how they know it is God talking and while I often remain skeptical of miracles (the sort that are "unnatural") I leave room for them
I heard Father Stephen Freeman talk about a Russian priest he met who said something to him that stuck in his mind. The priest at one point said, "You Americans! You talk about miracles like you don't believe in God!" The point being that in the West, miracles are often taken as evidence that God exists, that something is going on "up there in heaven" and God is "intervening" in this reality. It flows from the deeply engrained Western perspective of the deist divide between our the "ordinary" or "secular" realm and the divine realm. Father Stephen uses the analogy of a two-story universe rather than a one-story universe. Those in the West who discount miracles are also, though, largely mired in the "secular" perspective of reality. Obviously, I liked that story enough for it to stick in my head.
BTW mariam, I recently read "Take This Bread" and loved it. In loaning it to a friend who likely will not relate to it as much as I did, I had a hard time describing what it felt like to read that book. The best I could come up with was this. None of the details of Sara Miles' upbringing, life experiences, conversion experiences, and experiences through the process of conversion actually directly correlates with anything in my life or conversion. And yet, as I read it, I connected on multiple levels. I understood and could relate to almost everything she experienced. It's hard to explain. I bugged a few friends I share my thoughts with probably to death by quoting chunks in emails as I read it. It's hard to describe. One thing she captures very well is how strange it is for some of us to find ourselves Christian.
Well said Mariam!
I get a bit nervous when someone thinks God is literally intervening or wost "talking" to them. Usually that means something really bad is about to happen that benefits them at the expense of others (like flying a plane into a building, expelling a whole race of people from their homes, or justifying genocide, slavery and economic inequality).
I would say I tend to feel a little nervous whenever anyone talks about God in terms of "intervening" or not "intervening" as statements of category. In either instance, they seem to be talking about a God who is not everywhere present and filling all things and a reality which can somehow be held separate from God.
Progressive,
It's OK. I get very nervous too. When push comes to shove, I'm almost always in the "rational" corner. And when a "miracle" does appear to happen, when God does appear to speak to us I think we need to give our head a shake and look for rational explanations first. The times when I thought God was "speaking" to me (don't worry, I didn't hear any voices or see angels or anything) his messages were about trust, love, forgiveness and perseverance, so even if I'm wrong about the messages being from God, it's not like I will be strapping on a bomb any time soon:)
There was one more thing that I wanted to say. I think God takes us as we are - the religiously rigid who need certainty of belief, the fearfully skeptical who are afraid of letting go of the rational world even momentarily. When Thomas simply couldn't believe his eyes, Jesus didn't say, "That's it, leave. I can't have doubt among those I have given the privilege of establishing my church." He took his hand and showed him his wounds. When the disciples were afraid when there was a storm at sea, Jesus did not say, "Alright, row back to shore now, because obviously none of you is worthy of being my disciples". He said "Why are you afraid, you who have little faith?" And he calmed the seas so they wouldn't be afraid. In each case Jesus is more concerned with obtaining their trust than rebuking their lack of faith. So, while I personally believe that the acceptance of the possibility of miracles may give us a richer faith, I don't think God will cast us out of the circle if we have a hard time believing in them.
Scott,
Miles' conversion experience echoed with me in a lot of ways. I too wandered into an Anglican church for no particular reason and found myself weeping uncontrollably and struck by the presence of "something". I too kept going back to make sense of the experience on the one hand and hungering for it on the other, and found myself each week crying and hearing God speaking to me and not being able to rationally explain that phenomenon. I laughed at her descriptions of the reactions of her intellectual atheistic friends and family because my experiences were similar. I was not prepared for the intensity, for the way my heart took over my mind and I still don't even try to explain that aspect of things to my doubting family. I remember saying her exact words: "People think/will think I am turning into a religious nut. I am turning into a religious nut." I haven't finished the book yet, but I am really enjoying it.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.