Energion Direct

Category: Theology

Do atonement theories continue to speak to the human condition? —NO

[EDITOR’S NOTE: This post is part of our series on controversial questions. A NO post will normally follow a YES post. Join in by posting your comments.]

by Steve Kindle

As with most of the controversial questions in this series, they must be qualified in certain ways due to the wide range of possible approaches. Even then, we can only scratch the surface. This is especially true of this question. So my effort will not be to convince as much as it is to open possibilities for reevaluation.
Just what is the human condition? The Bible’s answer, albeit here in condensed form, is that human beings are separated from God by personal and corporate sin. As long as this condition obtains, humans are destined for an eternity apart from God. In order to take away this guilt and remove this separation so that God and humans can be at one again, a penalty must be paid. It was Jesus “whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith.” (Romans 3:25) Through faith in this self-sacrificial act, humans can appropriate salvation, or at-one-ment (atonement), with God.
Beginning with the New Testament and down to our day, people have struggled to understand how the sacrifice of Jesus accomplished atonement. This struggle has produced several theories, none of which has become the only orthodox explanation. This is partly due to the fact that the New Testament, itself, puts forth competing answers, and that no one theory has captured the imagination of the church. These were doctrinally formative years where disciples were trying to figure out the meaning of Jesus for the community. We are still engaged in that endeavor.
Generally, the atonement theories have this in common: they each assume that human beings are sinners who deserve eternal punishment (hell), and that the death of Jesus is the only means of relief from the wrath of God. The human condition, then, is to either live a life under the curse of death, or by faith in Jesus, appropriate salvation.
What kind of a world presumes such a curse and cure?
Atonement theories originated when the world was young, at least in the minds of their originators. For Augustine, it was a mere 4500 years old when he first conceived of an original Adam passing on to humanity (through sex) the inescapable human condition of depravity, known as Original Sin, which could only be alleviated by the sacrifice of Christ. All one had to do was trace the biblical genealogies and one could arrive at the first parents. This was essentially the view until the rise of modern geology in the 18^th century. We now know our world, the planet Earth, to be 1,000,000 times older than Augustine imagined (4.5 billion years old). The literalness of the Genesis primordial accounts were quite plausible in those days, but only biblical literalists continue to believe them today.
Also complicating the picture is the emergence of Charles Darwin and his biological theory of evolution¹. This leads to the conclusion that there were no such people as the historical first parents, Adam and Eve²; that, in fact, humanity’s rise took millions of years and many iterations before homo sapiens emerged about 200,000 years ago. Ergo, no “original” Adam, no “original” sin. This suggests that all doctrines adduced from a literal Adam need to be reevaluated, including those of the apostle Paul. A savior who saves us from a primordial “fall” that never happened is credulous in a pre-Darwinian age and impossible to imagine in ours.
Reevaluations remind me of the adage, “having your cake and eating it, too.” Most are efforts to keep evolution and a literal Adam. One suggestion is that God chose a “first couple” out of the pool of existing humanoid creatures and invested them with souls. It was this couple who rebelled against God and ushered in sin. Unfortunately, missing in this construction are the rib from which Eve came, the Garden of Eden, and the assertion that “there was no one to till the ground,” until God formed ha ’adam from the ground.
In those Christian traditions that reject Original Sin as a doctrine, they, nevertheless, hold to a sense of universal sin that no human can escape from. “All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.” So whether one comes corrupted into the world through Original Sin, or sins by nature of a corrupted mind, all humans are in need of redemption.
None of this has addressed the presumed answer to the dilemma of fallen humanity: sacrifice. During the time the Bible addresses, sacrifice was the order of the day. By sacrificing crops or animals, and, yes, humans, the petitioner believed that God or the gods were temporarily assuaged.
All but one or two atonement theories have, at their base, the conviction that humanity needs to be redeemed, is incapable of redeeming itself, and that a supernatural imposition in history is required to affect a cure. But is this truly the human condition?
G. K. Chesterton once averred that, “Certain new theologians dispute original sin, which is the only part of Christian theology which can really be proved,” He saw original sin as the one Christian doctrine that is empirically verifiable and validated by 3500 years of recorded human history.
Evolutionary theory has another answer to humanity’s seemingly irresistible proneness to violence. It’s called the “selfish gene,” and (regardless if it’s a gene or a syndrome) its purpose is to protect the survival of the individual through any threats to its demise. Rather than our propensity to sin, we have a propensity to survive as a way to insure the perpetuation of the species. If this is true, no atonement theory can spare us of it.
In another post on EDN, Allan Bevere quotes John Polkinghorne:

A creation allowed to make itself can be held to be a great good, but it has a necessary cost not only in the blind alleys and extinctions that are the inescapable dark side of the evolutionary process, but also in the very character of the processes of a world in which evolution takes place. The engine driving biological evolution is genetic mutation and it is inevitable in a universe that is reliable and not capriciously magical, that the same biochemical processes which enable germ cells to produce new forms of life will also allow somatic cells to mutate and become malignant That there is cancer in creation is not something that a more competent and compassionate Creator could easily have eliminated, but is the necessary cost of a creation allowed to make itself.
God acts within the open grain of nature and not against it. God interacts with creatures but does not overrule them, for they are allowed to be themselves and to make themselves. It follows from this that not everything that happens will be in accordance with God’s direct will. The divine sharing of the causality of the world with creatures will permit the act of a murderer or the incidence of cancer, though both events run counter to God’s desires.³

Certainly if you lived in the pre-scientific eras up to the modern age, the notions of sin and sacrifice could inform your life. It would have been as close to you as the air you breathed. The death of Jesus as somehow the answer to your life’s predicament would make sense. Today, we live in a totally different world. “New occasions teach new duties; Time makes ancient good uncouth.”
It is important to bear in mind that not only has the Christian church never camped on one particular atonement theory, it put forward through the centuries a variety of theories. This should make us pause and reflect on how elusive the notion of the work of Christ is in its exactness and detail, even the literalist interpretation of Paul, notwithstanding. Add to this that the Gospels provide different meanings to the death of Jesus. One is entitled to ask, ‘Are these options the only ones possible, and must we be restricted to choosing only among these?’
In premodern times, “man’s inhumanity to man,” was described as sin and its antidote was atonement. There was very little else that could serve as an option We have to take into consideration that human beings have only been at this civilization game for about 10,000 years. For most of that time, we have not needed anything more than our tribe for our survival, whether that be an actual tribe, clan, village, city, or nation. The idea that all of humanity can now be wiped from the face of the Earth is very recent. We have not begun to face up to that reality. Problems are no longer limited to here or there, or them or us. Where once the various disputations had no bearing beyond the disputants, now no one is immune from serious harm inflicted anywhere. All problems may be local but they have worldwide consequences. This means that it now takes the cooperation of the entire world to solve its failures. We are just now realizing that an “us versus them” world needs to be reconsidered. To revise Chesterton, “This new world has not been tried and found wanting, it has not been tried.” The “selfish gene” just may become our best ally as we learn to work together for our own good. For we will either survive or perish together.
The “new physics” helps us place humanity in proper perspective. It provides us a context into which we can place not only ourselves but also all of creation—we are all connected. Moreover, not just humans, but every particle of the universe from the furthest star to the minutest sub-atomic particle are part of the same Oneness. This is true “at-One-ment”: we are all one. There is no dividing us between those who are in and those who are out. We can have no enemies, as this would make us enemies of ourselves.
“Sin” needs to be recharacterized, or better still, broadened. Since all things are connected, or One, any act that is against the well-being of any part of creation is sin. What is sin? Anything that places distance between any part of creation. Another way of putting this is sin is anything that serves to disrupt the Oneness that is by working against its well-being. The Golden Rule becomes the rule for the cosmos, not just for humans.
Forgiveness between humans can serve as a model for transcending the “human condition.” No atonement (as blood/life sacrifice) is necessary. Forgiveness is the act of the offended one foregoing retribution and willing the well-being of the offender. I find this works well with at least one atonement theory, Moral Influence. It sees the whole life of Jesus, including his teachings, gathering of disciples, death and resurrection, as a model for how the world can be saved from itself. Not by blood sacrifice (penal substitution, etc.), but by a servant model that encourages followers to live for the well-being of all, even if it means losing your life in the process. This was Luke’s view and it is now mine. In this way, Jesus is my savior. He taught me how to live properly before God in an “us against them” world. Doing so, I am “at one” with God and God’s world.
NOTES
¹Bear in mind that evolution is scientific fact; natural selection as its mechanism remains a theory.
²The so-called “Mitochondrial Eve” is often mistaken as representing the first human woman. She is, rather, the mother of all humans now living as descending from her in an unbroken line. However, she had parents, siblings, cousins, etc., but their descendants, also humans, are no longer represented in the human genome.
³Polkinghorne, Science and the Trinity, p. 72.

Steve’s books can be viewed and ordered here: https://energiondirect.info/authors/authors-d-k/steve-kindle

February 2, 2016
Do Atonement Theories Continue to Speak to the Human Condition? —Yes
by Allan R. Bevere

Atonement is the overarching word Christians use to refer to what it is that Jesus Christ has accomplished for the world in his death and resurrection. It literally means “at-one-ment,” and denotes the reconciliation, the bringing together of God and humanity and by extension the entire world and cosmos. Through the centuries Christians have disagreed over the exact nature of the atonement, that is, they have debated the mechanics of Christ’s atonement—what exactly did Jesus accomplish in his death and resurrection? In other words, they were asking how the atonement works.
Some have suggested that ancient theologies of atonement—specifically theories that involve Jesus’ death as a sacrifice or as a substitution, or as providing satisfaction to God—no longer speak to the human situation in the twenty-first century and they, therefore should be disregarded in favor of understandings that speak to current sensibilities. And while, I believe wholeheartedly that the significance of Jesus’ work should speak to current concerns that by no means requires a rejection of the theological wisdom that we have inherited through the centuries. In other words, the meaning of Paul’s words that “Christ died for our sins according to the Scripture” (1 Cor. 15:3) cannot be understood in the twenty-first century if we cannot understand its meaning in previous centuries. So do I believe that classical atonement theories speak to the human condition today? Yes, indeed they do. I offer several reasons in defense of my position.
First, the atonement that Jesus brings is so rich and multi-faceted that we find several theories in the New Testament and the church in its wisdom never took an official position on which theories were right or more central.
It is true that individual theologians rejected various atonement theories in favor of others. Peter Abelard (1079-1142), for example rejected the idea that Jesus’ death made satisfaction to God and paid a ransom and instead embraced the moral influence theory in which Christ’s death provides a moral example for his followers. Others embraced the various theories of atonement, but put a particular one at the center as being the most significant as did the Protestant Reformers in reference to penal substitution.
But the point that must be made is that the church universal has never issued an official ecumenical statement on the exact nature of atonement. Why? Simply because the several aspects of the atonement can all be found in Scripture, and the work of Jesus Christ on the cross is so rich and vast in scope that it speaks to and offers salvation to all the sordid ways human beings find themselves to be broken and estranged from God. The various theories of the atonement are like the facets of one diamond that sparkle no matter how one looks at it and from what direction one views it. No one facet captures the beauty of the whole diamond, but each facet is necessary to maintain its beauty. To reject one or more theories to focus only on one or two facets is to attempt to cut a diamond that already sparkles threatening to turn it into a rock that hardly shimmers.
Second, every theory of atonement has its strengths that illuminate the work of Christ for our salvation, and every theory, if taken too far or focused on at the expense of the other theories distorts the meaning of the death and resurrection of Jesus. The problem has not been any of the different theories of atonement, but the over-emphasis on one at the expense of others.
For example, in regard to ransom theory, it can be shown that the image of our salvation as being purchased through Jesus, who paid the price through his death is found throughout the New Testament (Mark 10:45; 1 Corinthians 6:20; 7:23). Its strengths emphasize that fact that sin deceives and enslaves people. We do not have the power to free ourselves. Sin has kidnapped us, or better, we have allowed ourselves to be kidnapped by sin. The problem with this theory is when some have gotten lost on the question as to the object of the ransom. This is to take the theory too far. The focus is on the price paid by someone else and the victory of resurrection.
If the ransom theory emphasizes that human beings are enslaved to sin, the satisfaction theory focuses on the truth that we human beings are perpetrators of sin. Both theories held together expressed the complexity of the human condition—we are both victims of sin and its perpetrators at the same time. The problem, however, is that if satisfaction is pushed too far God ends up sounding like an over-bearing ruler concerned more about his honor than the humanity he created.
Penal-substitution reminds us that God is righteous and requires righteousness according to the law that God has established. Sin breaks the law and such violations bring consequences. Sin is a serious matter. It causes injustice and God is just. On the cross, Jesus Christ is the justice of God (Romans 5:2; 2 Corinthians 5:16-17; Colossians 1:19-20). The problem with penal-substitution taken too far is that too often the motivating factor of Christ’s death is the Father’s forced sacrifice of his Son and not the Son’s free choice to die for humanity (more on that below).
The moral influence theory rightly emphasizes God’s love as the basis for Christ’s work. It reminds us that apart from God’s love God and humanity would have no hope of relationship. If God did not love us, there would be no basis for divine suffering on our behalf. The problem with moral influence when pressed too far is that it emphasizes God’s mercy at the expense of God’s justice. When God’s justice is eclipsed we lose the proper context in which God’s love is demonstrated.
So, the point here is that the problem is not with traditional atonement theories in and of themselves, it’s how atonement is distorted when we put all of our “theological eggs in only one atonement basket.” And that leads to my third point.
Third, all too often when individuals reject certain atonement theories what they are reacting to is not the best theological articulations of those theories, but the caricatures of those theories. I quote Scot McKnight,

About a decade ago it became avant garde theology to contend the classical Christian theory of atonement was nothing less than divine child abuse. That is, the image of a Father punishing a Son, or exacting retribution at the expense of his own Son, or punishing a Son for the good of others—each of these became a way of deconstructing classical atonement theory.

Unfortunately, this approach works from a very simplistic image: a father, a son, and a brutal death and attributes intention to the father as one who brutalizes a son. As an image, it connotes abuse. The image, however, abuses the Bible’s image.
If the critics were to say each time that they are criticizing not penal substitution theory itself but the caricatures of PSA, then one might be more sympathetic for there clearly are abuses of the theory and imagery. But the critics do not frequently say that; in fact, my read is that the Father requiring death for sin (the consequences of sin), and putting the Son in the place of others, is an image of the Father using violence against the Son. So I’m not convinced the “caricature of a caricature” theory solves the problem. If there are consequences for sin (death, suffering, etc.), then there is some kind of “punishment” theory at work in sin-language and atonement-language.(1)
So the problem is that all too often critics of penal substitution are not responding to the best and deepest theological reflection given to the church through the centuries, but to those whose accounts are as theologically suspect as those who offer the critique. The cross of Christ is not what the Father perpetrated on the Son, but it is the freely chosen offering of the Son. In both Western and Eastern theologies the cross is a Trinitarian act of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Fourth, when critics of classical atonement theories say that they do not speak in the twenty-first century, they provincially mean that they do not speak to twenty-first century Western autonomous individualists that don’t really believe they’re all that bad, and know little of real sacrifice.
Zimbabwe pastor, Qwinyai Muzorewa writes of how the sacrifice of Jesus, the firstborn Son speaks to his African context not infected with modern autonomous deceptions:
The firstborn son is prepared to sacrifice for the sake of his family’s spiritual and physical well-being. He is cognizant of the fact that he will receive blessings and yet also shoulder curses on behalf of his family. A responsible firstborn son would rather die than watch his father perish before his face…. Bluntly put, he holds a position that comes with glorious benefits and rewards, but also with great responsibilities. What pleased God was not the death but the atonement; Jesus’s death was not punishment by God or payment to God for the sins of the world. Rather; it was the saving act that only the firstborn Son could perform efficaciously. Thus, it was the Son’s pleasure to save everybody in the family. It was an act of self-actualization. It was an accomplishment, rather than punishment imposed on him by his father.(2)
The irony here is that such atonement theories are usually rejected by those who complain the loudest about colonial attitudes, but all too often Western liberalism is the worst form of paternalism there is because it disguises itself as enlightened.
Fifth, one cannot separate the work of Christ from the person of Christ. Soteriology (the doctrine of salvation) can only be coherent in the context of Trinitarian doctrine and a Christology that affirms Jesus as the God-Man—truly divine and truly human.
All too often critiques of classical atonement theories separate too widely what the cross means from who Jesus is. In the early centuries, questions concerning the person of Christ were always placed within the context of the work of Christ. “If we say this about who Jesus is, what does it mean for our salvation—what Jesus has done? Jesus must be truly divine for only God can save, but Jesus also must be truly human for in the words of Gregory of Nazianzus, Jesus “cannot save that which he has not become.” All too often contemporary critiques of classical atonement lack the theological depth of the rich wisdom passed on to us by those who thought about these matters in ways that truly speak to the human condition in every age. We throw that wisdom out at our peril.
After all, the human condition hasn’t changed over two thousand years. We still believe we know better than God what we truly need to be saved—actually like previous generations we are not so sure we actually need to be saved. Instead of preaching Christ and him crucified we affirm humanity and it improved.
The cross remains a scandal to Jew and Greek (1 Corinthians 1:23) and to all the enlightened cultured despisers of classical Christianity.
___
NOTES
- (1) Scot McKnight, “Atonement and Divine Child Abuse.”
- (2) Mark D. Baker (ed.) Proclaiming the Scandal of the Cross: Contemporary Images of Atonement. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006), pp. 165, 167-168
  
  Allan’s books can be viewed and ordered here: https://energiondirect.info/authors/authors-a-c/allan-r-bevere
February 1, 2016
WHAT IS TRUTH?

by Herold Weiss

More than any other biblical book According to John is concerned with the necessity to distinguish what is true from what is false, what is genuine from what is spurious. Throughout the gospel one finds declarations concerning “the true light,” “the true bread,” “the true food,” “the true Israelite,” “the true shepherd,” “the true disciple,” “the true worshipper.” It would appear, then, that there are false manifestations of all these things. These statements, even while cast metaphorically, are discrete claims to be taken seriously. Moreover, the gospel establishes that “God is true,” and that the Son brought “grace and truth” to women and men. Jesus among human beings is identified as “the way, and the truth, and the life.”
The gospel makes clear, however, that the truth it is concerned with is not that which stands because it passes the test of non-contradiction. Neither is it an abstract universal that exists apart, of at least distinct, from all its instances. Today the search for truth is concerned to establish the facts in any given case. We are the inheritors of the Western tradition that is interested in dissecting nature and in establishing what happened in the past. These efforts are constrained by restrictions as to what counts as evidence on which conclusions may be drawn. There is a prevailing skepticism about any claim to absolute truth because there is no evidence that can support such a claim. Of course, the basic characteristic of both scientific and historical truths is that they are to be discarded as soon as new evidence establishes that something else is to be taken as true. This new truth, of course, is also liable to becoming obsolete. Our modern search for the determination of what is going on in nature and in history assumes that truth has to do with knowledge, that is, with true information. Thus our search for the truth is bound to what is bound by space and time.
In According to John, on the other hand, Jesus promises his disciples that the truth they will encounter will make them free. Freedom, however, is not something to be known. It is something to be had. Like the truth that Jesus promised his disciples, freedom is something to be experienced, something to be lived. The establishing of this basic distinction between what is in the realm of knowledge and what is in the realm of being is one of the great treasures to be found in this wonderful gospel. In fact, it would seem that it was written to answer Pilate’s question at Jesus’ trial, “What is truth?” Pilate’s question assumes that truth is to be known. Jesus assumes that truth is in the realm of being. What he promises his disciples is life, not more information.

Order Meditations on According to John here: https://energiondirect.info/biblical-studies/meditations-on-according-to-john

December 3, 2015
READING AS CONTEMPLATION

by Herold Weiss

It is not uncommon for a person who has not read the Bible to ask a Bible reader for advice as to where to start. Most books are read starting at the beginning. Reading the Bible this way, however, may prove quite a challenge. If one does that it may not take long to find it hard to concentrate on the reading. Quite often the person asking for advice is told, “Start with the Gospel of John. It is simple and interesting.” That is true, and reading According to John for its narrative can prove quite beneficial. The simplicity of its language and its limited vocabulary make it quite accessible. Teachers of New Testament Greek invariably use texts from this gospel as examples for learning Greek vocabulary and grammar. The familiar expressions make it an ideal text for beginning students of Greek.
In the process of coming to terms with the story of Jesus told in According to John, the careful reader soon realizes that there is something going on underneath the surface of the story, and this discovery sparks the desire to dig down to the deeper levels of meaning that echo on the surface. Curious readers who decide to explore the treasures buried underneath will soon discover that the simple vocabulary is the carrier of heavy loads of meaning. They will find that the narrator had an ample supply of plays-on-words, a good ear for irony, that the dialogues consistently leave Jesus’ interlocutors in uncomfortable positions, and that the community in which this gospel took shape was philosophically literate. Of course, the linguistic alchemy is not there to impress readers with the superior talents of the narrator. It is there at the service of radical and profound theological claims.
The richness of According to John is not easy to tap because it is cast in a symbolic universe that is strange to us. The Johannine community apparently had serious disagreements with the Jewish community within which it had been conceived and with the Christian communities that were being formed around the main apostles. Coming to terms with the peripheral Christian community that defined itself by means of this document is a basic requirement for reading this gospel intelligently. With the help of a good historical guide, however, reading According to John can be an act of contemplation.

Order Meditations on According to John here: https://energiondirect.info/biblical-studies/meditations-on-according-to-john

December 1, 2015
Is Jesus coming "soon"?

by Edward W. H. Vick

Here is the question for you:
What do you make of the following sentences taken with the qualification, ‘But we cannot tell you when’?
The end of the world is nigh.
Jesus is coming again soon?
God is about to judge the world and bring in his kingdom.
*************************
I am going to tell you a story soon, a parable really! But first some explanations.
Eschatology has to do with the end. The Greek word eschaton means ‘end’. In Scripture and in Christian theology that means we shall talk about the future of the human species. But while so talking we involve ourselves in the present. Sometimes that present brings very trying times, the desolation, suffering and despair hardly expressible. Indeed Scripture expressed recognition of this and provided encouragement in striking and disturbing symbols. Some whole ‘books’ employ apocalyptic language, their purpose being to offer the hope that God is in ultimate control. For that reason, even if the present has to be lived under galling, violent and destructive conditions, it can be a hopeful present but one calling for continuous courage and patient endurance.
Since the ‘end’ is in God’s hands, in the present there may be contentment, courage and hope born of patience. Eschatology touches the life of the believer in all aspects of life.
The believer may live in hope that in the end goodness may prevail over evil. God will act in his wisdom and in his own time. But that time is never disclosed to humans. No one knows the day nor the hour of the final dénouement. There can nevertheless be an incentive in the here and now for constructive efforts, for endurance when persecuted. Such hope for divine intervention when final justice will prevail provides incentive for constructive, courageous and ethical activity in the here and now.
Some, taking their cue from apocalyptic passages, feel that they have authentic knowledge of the nearness of the Advent, the parousia, the Last judgment. These believers even attempt to calculate from numbers in the apocalyptic writings when the final events will occur. When the event did not take place on the date or dates predicted, they experienced bitter disappointment. There are those today, retaining some of the original fervour, who say that they are living in the ‘time of the end’, a phrase often left undefined, but still serving as a basis for expectation.
Among the many themes discussed in the book, I now select one for our consideration. For those who take their primary interpretations from the apocalyptic portions of Scripture the issue is about the end of the world and the introduction of the new age. Many believers are ready to say that it will be ‘soon’ but insist that neither they nor anyone can know when the event will take place. They cannot say how long it will be for the waiting to end. While they say they cannot specify a date for the Second Advent, they persist in saying, even with urgency, that it will be ‘soon’. They use various synonyms when asked what ‘soon’ means: ‘imminent’, ‘in the very near future’, ‘without delay’, ‘nigh’, ‘almost upon us’. Such emphatic denial that specific times can be given would seem to make the claim empty, or even not a claim at all. Look a little closer.
There are some sentences that cannot be false because they cannot be true either. Why not? What kind of sentence could that be? Does it depend on what the words mean or what even a single word in the sentence means, or on how the sentence is put together?
Finally, here is the parable.
There was a farmer who had three sons. Each one of them said, ‘Father, I shall come to help you soon.’
The first one, Bob, said ‘I shall come to the farm soon, this Wednesday in fact.’
The second one, Tom, said ‘I shall come to the farm soon, within the next ten days.’
The third one, Hank, said, ‘I shall come soon, but I do not know when and cannot say when. Nor can I give you a set limit for when it will be.’
Father was well pleased, and went to bed content that evening.
The sons got together afterwards and fell into conversation. Hank said, ‘Father seems very pleased and is looking forward to my help, even if I did not commit myself in any way. I did not give a particular date, and I did not set a time limit either’.
‘So, what do you mean then? That is not a proper way to use the term “soon” is it? It amounts to an empty promise doesn’t it?’ asked Tom.
‘I mean just what I said, I don’t know when.’ responded Hank.
Bob broke in, ‘If you don’t know when, then you cannot say ‘soon’ can you? Or if you do, it can’t mean anything. We know what we mean. We know what we intend. Father knows exactly what to expect of us. But as far as you are concerned, you might as well not be coming to help at all. You have given father hope by saying you will come soon. You have taken away all meaning by saying that “soon” does not mean what the rest of us take it to mean. It is an empty term.’
‘So be it’ said Hank.
‘But look here,’ exclaimed Tom. ‘You have raised hopes in father but his hopes are not at all well founded.’
‘Look!’ said Hank, ‘what is important is that dad is happy. I do not see myself in the near future being able to spare the time. But if Dad thinks and hopes that I shall be helping, that is what is important. Hank smiled and continued, ‘Every time he asks why I have not yet come and when I will be coming I can always go on saying that I am coming soon to help. My “soon” is a kind of elastic ‘soon.’ It is an extensible ‘soon.’ So as long as Dad hopes and I go on saying I will come “soon”, we are both happy. He is happy because he thinks I shall be not long in coming. I am happy not to have to fulfill a definite promise. My “soon” is a different “soon” from your “soon”. ’
‘Promise!’ shouted Will. ‘You can’t call that a promise when no-one can possibly know what it means in terms of real time. It can’t be false and it can’t be true. It’s an empty sentence and such sentences can’t be false or true.’
Bob said, ‘We have given definite information about when he can expect us. You have not said anything at all. You could go on saying your ‘soon’ as long as you live!
So it was. Hank is still saying his ‘soon’ and Dad is still waiting expectantly.
Consider hortatory meaning.
Let’s now look at another example of a sentence that looks at first sight to be stating simple facts but whose primary meaning is something else and ask what that is.
It’s six thirty and the shops shut at seven.
If you ask, ‘What is the function of this sentence?’ the answer might very well be that it is suggesting, urging, reminding you that you should be getting off to the shops. It is not just giving you information. It is saying, ‘Let’s go. We’re hungry!
It is to be taken as a command, a call for response. Commands are neither true nor false. They are not cognitive. So the primary function of a sentence that makes a statement may not be to assert something, to inform you of a state of affairs, even if you take it to be doing that, but rather to arouse you to do something. Its primary function is hortatory. It may state a fact. But the statement of the fact is not the primary intended meaning of the sentence. Its primary meaning is non-cognitive. The essential function of such a sentence is not to state a fact, but by stating a fact to urge you to action: ‘Go and buy some bread while you can! Don’t you know we’re hungry?’ The function of the whole sentence is to provide encouragement, to exhort, to suggest (sometimes urgent) action. That’s what ‘hortatory’ means.
It has its hortatory function when two conditions are fulfilled. First, that what the sentence states is both true and is understood, and second that the hearer accepts that it states a fact. In our case, the temporal reference (i. e. within half an hour, or at seven o’clock) can be checked and only, if true, can it provide the ground for the incentive to act appropriately. Note that the temporal reference may consist in reference to a specific time, date or to a limit, a stretch of time as in the above case: ‘at seven o’clock’, ‘within half an hour’.
*************
What we have here discussed represents one topic expounded in the book Eschatology. Others include:
New Testament Eschatology
Prophecy and Apocalyptic
Different kinds of eschatology
Words and Meanings
Jesus of the Gospels, the Eschatological Jesus
Resurrection
After the End

Another book by the author discussing these themes is available from Energion Publications: Edward W. H. Vick, The Adventists’ Dilemma

Order Eschatology here: https://energiondirect.info/study-guides/eschatology-a-participatory-study-guide

November 23, 2015
Getting Along with the Exes

by Henry Neufeld, Publisher

No, no, no! Not the ex-spouses. The ex-faiths!
You see, while Jody and I were both members of a United Methodist congregation when we got married, we had both come to that place by leaving other churches. Jody was ex-Catholic, and I was ex-Seventh-day Adventist.
These are both groups that have a bit of trouble with someone being ex. Ex-SDAs are viewed by more traditional Adventists as apostates. Having learned the important doctrines of the Sabbath, and understood the apostasy of fallen Protestantism, evidenced by their disobedience of the Sabbath command, and having once seemed to be a part of God’s true remnant people, the apostate has chosen, instead, to become God’s enemy and deny the true faith.
There are those who don’t believe one can even be ex-Catholic. For a completely different set of reasons, an ex-Catholic is often seen as apostate, having left the one true, holy, and apostolic church for some sect. Their one hope, of course, is that they can be brought back into the fold in some way.
Besides often having a hard time dealing with ex-members, there is another problem with an ex-Catholic/ex-SDA combination. SDAs are a step past protestants. They not only protest Roman Catholic doctrine. They protest the protestants who aren’t far enough away from Catholicism. If you talk to SDAs now, you will find that many have shed this prejudice and have admitted that the Catholic church of today is not the same as the church of the 15^th and 16^th centuries. History moves on and so do people. But there are still SDAs who think that distributing Ellen White’s book, The Great Controversy, is a good way to recruit new members. Evangelism, they would call it, as in evangelizing Christians who don’t have their doctrine right. The Great Controversy is a book that paints the Roman Catholic church in a very bad light with the Pope as the Antichrist. Indeed, demonize would be quite literally true of this description of Catholic life.
Catholics, in turn, can hardly be happy about a group that sees them as heathen in need of evangelization. One of my professors, from whom I took both some French and also Patristic Latin, was an ex-Catholic priest. His conversion was considered such a coup that there was a story book for young people about his experiences and how he had moved from the false religion of Catholicism to become part of God’s remnant people. (Note: I have written in some detail about SDA doctrines on my blog Threads from Henry’s Web. Just put SDA in the search box.)
I’ve painted a stark picture of the separation between our previous faiths for a reason. Neither of these descriptions is accurate for all members and even for all officials of these two churches.
I recall two interesting encounters I’ve had. The first was with a Catholic priest at a local church. I had taken a very good friend to Mass there, always mildly uncomfortable for me as I must stay seated as the Eucharist is offered, while people struggle to get around me. I seem to never find a good place to be both there, and out of traffic, especially when I’m accompanying someone who is participating. When I was leaving the church, the priest was shaking hands and, being a rather friendly fellow (and I must confess an excellent preacher), he cornered me, welcomed me, and shook my hands. Regarding my home church I said with a smile, “I’m from the heretics down the road.” He laughed, slapped me on the back and said, “Please! Separated brethren! You’re a separated brother now!”
The second was while taking one of my authors to a book signing and speaking engagement at a Seventh-day Adventist Church. (Energion Publications has several Seventh-day Adventist writers on its author list.) As the author signed books, I was accosted by a young man who said he worked at the conference office. He wondered how it was possible that one could have doctrinal problems with the Seventh-day Adventist Church, and was determined to ask me about it. He was somewhat less determined to hear the answer.
The pastor of that church, his wife, and a few of the leaders in the congregation took us to dinner following the event and apologized profusely for having let this happen to me. They didn’t think of me as an apostate and were quite happy to be in fellowship and ministry with me.
I can certainly balance any incident of unkindness or discourtesy from either of our former faiths with incidents of kindness, dialogue, and Christian fellowship. I don’t want these positive aspects to be forgotten. But I want to focus on the negatives and how we can work through those negatives to a more positive result.
Not every Methodist is the same, nor is every Baptist, nor every Presbyterian, nor every Seventh-day Adventist, nor every Catholic. Not even every Buddhist, Hindu, Jew, or—wait for it!—Muslim is the same as every other.
What each of us need is a bit of reorientation.
First, we need to reorient ourselves and find a new perspective on groups. Think for a minute about what I’ve said about these two groups. You should see a very clear similarity between them. Yes, there it is. Both groups tend to think of themselves as the true church and so see those who leave as departing from the truth and descending into falsehood.
You should have caught a phrase I just used that’s off-kilter. If you didn’t, work on that reorientation. I said “both groups tend to think.” But really people, individuals, in both groups tend to think in this way. And that suggests a different way of carrying out relationships. Multiply the friendships and avoid cases of enmity.
But, you may think, the authorities within the group encourage such negative thinking.
But, you should think instead, the friendships and good relationships remain possible.
As long as we define another group solely by its negatives, it will remain negative. In fact, by treating the group as a negative, we will tend to reinforce the negative attitude we, and they, already have.
So while Jody’s family and mine questioned our respective backgrounds, Jody and I just went ahead and looked for the positives. What was it that we both knew because of our background that would help us as we moved ahead? And in fact we both have found positive elements from our upbringing, many of them common elements. We can both point to family members whose strong faith has been an encouragement to us. There is a depth to our understanding of who we are now that comes, in part, from our experience of where we have been.
Neither of us are inclined to go back to our former denominations. But we can appreciate things about them.
Respecting people, learning from them, finding positive elements of their belief systems, and making friendships does not mean that one has to approve of everything or accept everything. One can still recognize the negative. I find, for example, that the more authoritarian elements of both the Catholic and SDA systems are not conducive to spiritual growth. That’s one of many reasons I’m not going back. But that disapproval doesn’t mean that I can’t be friends.
When Jody and I got married it was in a church that, at the time, was divided between an 11:00 am crowd and an 8:30 am crowd. The 8:30 crowd was contemporary and more spontaneous in worship style. It was also charismatic in theology as a general rule. The 11:00 crowd was traditional about its worship forms and generally Methodist mainstream in its theological positions. I had been, for some time, considered a member of the 11:00 crowd, but I had started attending both services. I did so because, as a teacher in the church, I felt it was my duty to be aware of “both” sides. (Note for further discussion: There are rarely just two sides to any two-sided issue.)
So when Jody and I chose to get married and scheduled the service for right after church, people from both services came together, many for the first time in years. Our wedding music included contemporary praise and traditional organ music. We expressed, as we joined our lives together, our hope that all could come to appreciate the value of the contribution of others.
It wasn’t just the exes that needed to be reconciled. It was the present. But the method was the same. It was by looking at and learning to appreciate what we could that we could bring together the best of streams of tradition within a single congregation, just as it is by learning to appreciate, building relationships, and bringing the best of our past faith communities together that we can build greater value from them.
This is not toleration but celebration. It is not compromise, but growth. I believe it is also not being overcome by evil, but overcoming evil with good (Romans 12:21).

Henry Neufeld’s books can be accessed here: https://energiondirect.info/authors/authors-n-s/henry-e-neufeld

November 18, 2015
Felix culpa: “a good mistake”

by Kent Ira Groff

Sometimes you can reflect on a failed project or a dumb little thing you did last week—in light of St. Augustine’s concept of felix culpa. Often it’s translated, “happy fault or fortunate fault,” referring to the fault/fall of Adam and Eve, which becomes the occasion for each of us to realize the “grace in the grit” as each of us leaves the garden our own less than perfect lives. I like to translate it “a good mistake.”
Only retroactively do we see good coming out of a failed experiment. But even to frame failure as an “experiment” begins to redeem it. Thomas Edison could say he didn’t fail, but found 1,000 ways how not to make the light bulb. Proactively, what we can do is pray to notice flecks of grace in the gaff or the goof—that it can become a good mistake.
“Drops of experience” are never wasted, according to mathematician philosopher Alfred North Whitehead. When you lose computer data on new members or drive two hours to a hospital to visit a cancer patient who was just discharged or eke away hours learning new technology for a website, tell yourself: All that time I spent praying for new members or for folks with cancer or for our congregation to connect with tech generations.
Here’s a really good mistake. In September 1928 Alexander Fleming returned to the laboratory of St. Mary’s Hospital in London after being on holiday for a couple of weeks. He discovered Petri dishes that his students mistakenly left in an incubator had formed mold in the dank atmosphere. Fleming noticed—and noticing is the miracle of any genuine discovery—that the mold had killed a ring of bacteria. Fleming’s surprise discovery of penicillin is a real life story of how a good mistake created the gift of healing for generations. His vacation led to his vocation.
Micromanaging. The need to control people and situations is one of the demonic expressions of perfectionism. At the root of the demon of micromanaging lies a secret fear of shame: I don’t want another’s half-botched job to reflect poorly on my own self-competence. Another demon behind micromanaging is failing to trust in God by not trusting people.
Humility in a strange way is actually spiritual self-confidence: confidence that you can celebrate the gifts of others, rather than belittle them, while at the same time claiming your own. It’s a God-confidence that there are enough gifts for both your neighbor and you to claim your potential for the good of the cosmos, without exploiting or belittling each other. And that’s a good definition of Greek telios: mature—even though not perfect.
Spiritual Practice: “Let It Be” Listen to the Beatles’ song “Let It Be” (on iTunes or CD). “Mother Mary” refers to Paul McCartney’s dream of his mother, who died when he was fourteen. The title also can be heard as a subtle take on Mary’s response when the angel Gabriel announced she would bear a child—seemingly impossible: “Let it be to me according to your word” (Luke 1:38). As you hear “Let it be…” in your mind imagine letting go of an issue that you can’t control, or accepting a challenge that may want to “birth” itself in you.

Order Clergy Table Talk here: https://energiondirect.info/book-series/conversations-in-ministry/clergy-table-talk

November 4, 2015
The way in: how we got to be who we are

by Steve Kindle

The history of philosophy has been aptly summed up thus: “No matter what is considered the ultimate in metaphysical understanding today, tomorrow it will be replaced by another received as the ultimate in metaphysical understanding.” The same can be said for how the Bible has been interpreted throughout the centuries. I ask you, when was the last time you heard a sermon detailing truth derived from the allegorical method of interpretation? Could we say never?
I recently led a seminar on the four Gospels. You can be sure I didn’t follow Irenaeus’s lead (the leader of the church in France circa 70 CE) who declared that, “There actually are only four authentic gospels. And this is obviously true because there are four corners of the universe and there are four principal winds, and therefore there can be only four gospels that are authentic.” Somehow that logic escapes me, yet it was obvious to Irenaeus.
Psalm 19:4b-6 states, In the heavens he has set a tent for the sun, ⁵which comes out like a bridegroom from his wedding canopy, and like a strong man runs its course with joy. ⁶Its rising is from the end of the heavens, and its circuit to the end of them; and nothing is hid from its heat.
Before the Copernican revolution was finally accepted as “the way things are,” biblical interpreters were excused for taking this passage literally. Today, however, few, if any, would want to make a geocentric case. I cite these examples because as worldviews change, so does the manner in which the Bible is interpreted. It could be no other way, as how we look at the world informs how we interpret the Bible.
Being born into the world is like moving into a fully furnished house that was completely designed, decorated, and landscaped with no input from you. No thought was given to your taste, interests, preferences, needs or desires. You had no say whatsoever in any regard to your new abode. Our individual part of the world is like that. We had no choice as to our country of origin, language, form of government, even our religion. All of these preceded us in our world. The child’s whine that “It’s not fair!” is our first recognition of this reality. No, the world is not set up with us in mind.
The world we inhabit presents itself to us as the “givens,” the things we take for granted, the things that “just are the way they are.” I doubt you worry too much that the sun may not rise tomorrow, or that the laws of aerodynamics may change mid-flight. Most of us reading this are well situated in our Newtonian universe.
Generally speaking, we seldom give much thought to how we live, or why we do the things we do, or why things are the way they are. We accept our “houses” as they are presented to us and generally don’t object to much that is there. We easily accommodate the world around us, and this has been true from the beginning of human life. Whether this is good or bad is beside the point. It’s the way it is. This only becomes a problem when we fail to recognize that we are not self-made, that our opinions, sense of the real, values, and even mores are preconditioned in us. It is virtually impossible for us to completely step out of ourselves and examine our a prioris. And, failing to do so, we truly believe we are able to read the Bible without any encumbrances whatsoever, that we understand what we are reading as though it came from an angel from heaven. With Irenaeus, it’s just so obvious!
It needs to be stated very forcefully and unequivocally that NO ONE looks at the world totally objectively. Although our “world houses” are all arranged differently, we all inhabit one. That means that all of us share one thing in common: our worlds, of necessity, will be seen differently. We cannot escape this; it is part of the human condition. This is one of the major reasons we see the Bible differently, and why those differences are often incomprehensible from another point of view.
I believe that confidence in one’s opinions increases in direct proportion to the lack of perception of the forces that make us who we are. Conversely, as we become more alert to these forces, we find agreement of our views by others less important than the relationships formed themselves, that truth is found in grace more than in (elusive) absolutes, and that humility before the text opens more widows to heaven than any interpretive scheme. The answer to our differences is found in valuing the person more than needing to devalue that person’s opinions. But this is only possible if we don’t think of ourselves (and our opinions) more highly than we ought.
Tomorrow’s post: “The Way Out: Finding Our Way Home”

Order I’m Right and You’re Wrong here: https://energiondirect.info/biblical-studies/im-right-and-youre-wrong

October 13, 2015
3 WAYS TO TELL IF YOU’RE IRREDEEMABLE

by Nick May

MINUTEMEN was a book I wrote that repeatedly caused my mom to ask, “How can you tell a story with no redemption?” She questioned whether or not it was even biblical to do so. I questioned whether or not I even cared. Regardless of my attempts to write stories with no moral or tidy sense of redemption, such elements often have a hard time staying buried for long within lines about real people in authentic situations. Even I couldn’t spin a yarn (knowingly or unknowingly) without some kind of inherent moral compass. Maybe you identify with one of the four dudes from my sophomore title. Just in case, here are 3 ways to tell if you’re irredeemable.
Your current life path was determined by a girl you no longer know.
This one is funny, because I assume it could pertain to a male or a female, but I hear more stories about girls attracting guys down ambitious roads that, at some point, bear a flagrant fork in their destinies. Think back for a moment. Are you sitting where you’re sitting today because some girl you liked was a part of something you might have never discovered without her? I think you’ll be surprised at how many of your life choices are a direct result of chasing teenage girls who now have kids that look half like what your potential child would have looked…
Somewhere back there, you chose beef stew over birthright.
Some of us may have taken the shorter route to satisfaction. Maybe we saw that long haul and decided it was just too much gas. Thom, John, Nate and Ezra (the book’s main characters) each display a piece of this mindset in their own way. Thom believes he’ll never love again, John believes he never should, Nate doesn’t even understand love, and Ezra, well he finds a way to have his stew and eat it too. In each of their cases, the boys give up meaningful commitments in favor of immediate belonging.
Your long-term plan looks more like an escape plan.
There’s a mess that you’re standing right in the middle of. You made it, now you’re making your bed in it. Maybe you didn’t even make the mess. Maybe you were born into it, like a pig in the pods, and that’s your excuse. Either way, you’ve probably uttered the phrase: “I’ll be so glad when I’m out of this town…this job…this relationship.” Trust me, no plan worth keeping is one that begins with you running away from something.
If there’s one thing MINUTEMEN did right, it’s scare folks. It may surprise you that I’ve never cast a shadow on the door of a strip club, or been inside a rundown beach motel where they’re cooking crystal meth for frisky hazwopers, but I know, first hand, that messy people most certainly exist, and they absolutely lead messy lives. A lot of us would call these kinds of bottom feeders irredeemable. I’ll let you judge for yourself.

Order MINUTE MEN here: Minutemen (Second Edition)

October 7, 2015
what did jesus mean?

by David Cartwright

It’s funny what we remember and what we forget. Some things stick with us for a lifetime. Others refuse to come to light. One insight that has stayed with me now for fifty years is a comment one of my professors made while I was in divinity school. The class was discussing various views of the doctrine of the Eucharist. Speaking of Reformation viewpoints, the professor said, “What you have to realize is that Luther’s question was, “What does the text say?” Calvin’s question was, “What does the text mean?” That is the basis of their disagreement on Jesus’ words, “This is my body.” Luther came away from the text with a doctrine of the ubiquitous presence of Christ in the elements, while Calvin believed in a memorial interpretation. After all, as Calvin put it, Christ’s body cannot be in the elements since Jesus ascended into Heaven. Needless to say, the discussion has continued to this day, with a sordid history of in-hospitality on both sides of the divide. What did Jesus mean when he said, “This is my body.”?
Well, that’s not the only scriptural saying of Jesus we could reflect on. There’s an interesting place in the Gospel of Luke (Chapter 22) that suggests that some of Jesus’ disciples were carrying weapons. Earlier in Chapter 10, Jesus had explicitly told his disciples to go out with no bag, no purse, no sandals. Now he tells them to sell their cloak and buy a sword. Picking up on this, the disciples say “Look, Lord, here are two swords,” most likely the ever-present near-Eastern dagger. Jesus replies, “It is enough.” What on earth could he mean? Does he mean that two swords are enough? That’s all they need. Some commentators say no. These commentators say that this is not what Jesus meant at all. Others take a slightly different tack. They say that when Jesus saw that even his disciples were carrying swords, his heart was broken. They hadn’t gotten his message of non-violence. Still others say that Jesus is simply acknowledging that there is no way around violence in this world. “Let them have their way.” And sadly, even his disciples will be a part of it.
Obviously, the interpretation of this passage continues to cause us to reflect on the question, “What did Jesus mean?” The Two Sword passage has been used by some to justify going to war and by others to justify having nothing to do with war. Personally, I can see how these scriptures might apply both to situations of war and of non-violence. That is why I personally cannot conclude that Jesus is a pacifist, as many believe; nor do I think he’s an insurrectionist, as at least one is saying these days. Taken together with other things Jesus had to say, these scriptures help me see what the other side is talking about. Specifically, Luke 10 and Luke 22 taken together at least force us to ask the right questions, if not ultimately arriving at the answers we’re looking for. For instance, what are we to make of the use of drones in air strikes? What would Jesus think of this? As a Christian, all I can say is that finally it’s up to us to make the hard decision based on what we think Jesus means. That is the one thing I am confident that Jesus asks of us.
Next time: What did Jesus say?

To order Wounded by Truth–Healed by Love, go to: https://energiondirect.info/small-group-resources/wounded-by-truth-healed-by-love

October 2, 2015

Your cart (items: 0)

Products in cart
Product	Details	Total
	Available on backorder Previous price: Discounted price:	Save