God's PRESENCE / John Updike / Marilynne Robinson / THEISM-PERSONALISM

[Willis Elliott]

The following exchange may interest you if you're interested in "Subject" (above).

I have the interlocutor's permission to include his post, to which here is the first part of my response.

 

From: Willis Elliott

To: Alfred Bloom

Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 10:47 PM

Subject: God's PRESENCE / John Updike / Marilynne Robinson

Thanks, Al, for what amounts to an extended defense of your non-personalism.

1

The "Subject" to which you respond here is "God's PRESENCE" & the sense thereof.  The sense of the Presence of God is, for me, a continuous experience since my 9 Mar 35 conversion.  I'm puzzled: is this sense

something you had & neglected, or something you never had?

2

I have high regard for you as a person & as a thinker & am eager to learn from you.  So I need to hear more about your perception of my "ease" in assuming theism.  I am at ease in assuming, as well as experiencing, the presence of my beloved Loree: wherever she is, there is earthly home for me.  Isn't it natural to be at ease about any continuously experienced reality?

3

Today's Wall St. Journal Brooke-Allen memorial essay on John Updike speaks variously of his practice of the presence of God, a perplexing puzzlement to most of his critics (though almost all of his critics rate him as the top American literatus of his generation).  "Mr. Updike evinced a spiritual tranquility that has been distinctly unfashionable in intellectual circles over the past century or so....A church-going Protestant, he had a world picture that featured not only the looming presence of sex and death...but...what he called 'the pleasures of parenting, the comforts of communal belonging, the exercise of daily curiosity, and the...moral responsibility to make the best of each stage of life, including the last.'....His most explicitly theological novel, 'In the Beauty of the Lilies' (1996)."....His easy acceptance of Christianity has irked criics who seek a more strenuous, antagonistic religious stance from their great writers.  The formidable James Wood has take issue with his 'strange theological serenity....complacent.  For him the world indeed does seem to exist as a divine visual gift, and as a consolation or reassurance, rather than a proof.'....The ability to communicate the world's 'divine visual gift' is not to be sneered at."  His prose expresses "joy...turn[s] the ordinary into the extravagantly artful."  The "Rabbit" tetralogy & sequel "constitute a consummate literary transformation of the commonplace."  He was "a Protestant, haunted by a God whose manifestations are elusive, yet all important."  The Rabbit series pictures ordinary American life not with "contempt, in the manner of today's hit ironists, but lovingly: They are beautiful because they are part of this infinitely beautiful life....a philosophical acceptance of the world as it is."  He was funny rather than bitter, & chose to live in a small town, outside what he called "the narrow precincts of the Manhattan intelligentsia, a site saturated in poisonous envy and reflexive intolerance and base impundence."  But he was "a very generous critic" (with two Pulitzer Prizes & two National Book awards).  /  Al, I accented the word "easy" &, in your past below, the word "ease."  In their contexts, the words somewhat differ in meaning; but there's a large life-attitudinal overlap, is there not?

4

Marilynne Robinson is another Pulitzer Prize novelist choosing to live in a small town (though just now teaching in a university).  I can't help but think that Updike had a profound influence on her fiction's mix of the messiness and perplexities of life with a cantus firmus (though almost inaudible until the last line of "Home" ["The Lord is wonderful."]) Protestant-based spiritual tranquility.

5

Of course "prayer without ceasing," or "the practice of the Presence of God," can be flattened out into nothing but cultivated fantasy, & must be so treated by non-theists.  At least on the surface, that is what we have in the play "Harvey" (subsequent '50 film, with Jimmy Stewart in spordic conversation with a 6'3" generally invisible white rabbit).  What's puzzling is that on some occasions, some others than the protagonist see the rabbit!  (As more than just Jesus' immediate disciples see him as resurrected.)  Physical eyes give us the power to see the visible: fantasy gives us the power to see the invisible.  A Jesus-story shows a reversal: Jesus really is walking on water, but his disciples in a fishing skiff think at first that they're seeing things, a fantasy (in the Greek text, "phantasma").

 

To be continued.

 

Grace and peace--

Willis

From: Alfred Bloom

To: Willis Elliott

Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 1:53 AM

Subject: Re: Re: Theophany, Shekhinah: God's PRESENCE - response to a pastor's request - response to a response

Dear Willis:

 

Thank you for your posts. You never cease to amaze me with your acumen and verve and the information you have at your disposal.

 

I am sorry not to respond sooner, but I am  now engaged in an exercise regime that cuts into my time and also trying to catch up on a book I am supposed to put together. Somehow there are not enough hours in the day and I m getting slower to boot.

 

However, I guess I am a reprobate Buddhist.  Your support for theism is understandable in the light of your history and experience, but that alone does not justify the ease with which you assume it.  When theism is left as a general term, the problems with it are not readily visible. However when you begin to unpack it, it has as many problems as any other religious or theological formulation. 

 

The usual idea is that theism means belief in a personal God. What is a personal God or a god who is a person? Whenever this question has been raised, the assertion is that God's personality is not like our personality with its limitations as persona. If God is said to make choices and exert will, still his will is not like human will with all its vagaries and anthropomorphic features, like being humanly emotional, and angry, though we are told of God's wrath and anger. What can that mean?  So whatever God is he is like something in human beings but without the limitations of humans. What is that, except to say we  really do not know what a personal God is, because it is beyond our experience of being persons. It is different.  Humans are not made more valuable or significant by claiming that they were made by a God or even is his image. The image  has not been defined either.

 

I would prefer to leave the issue  of God open and speak of reality as inconceivable and indefinable. It may be the source of what is but we can only deal with what comes within our sphere of knowledge; all else is.

 

We are here, however, we got here. The question is more how do we live and relate in the world and life where we are?  To clutter it up wih dogma and speculation only leads to interminable argument  between opposing views--like the five blind men and the elephant. story.   

 

The founding fathers in mentioning a creator God were more deists than theists. God set the world going and then left it alone. It was more a deus ex machina and certainly not the theistic  savior-god of modern evangelicalism or fundamentalism. I recently read an article on the Jefferson bible  which probably was nothing like what you would want to agree with. He left all the things that were rationally objectionable out. Everybody seems want to  use the founding fathers to support their pet notion.

 

As far as  intelligent design is concerned, a cause need only be suffient to the effect and does not imply other qualities beyond the simply aspect of rationality, if that is what it is.  It is a question whether the world is created by intelligence or is ordered or whether our minds  find order in it because of the way our minds have evolved.  I think Kant  with his categories and antinomies had the idea of our minds imposing order.  Hume also indicated that we cannot know the cause because it only happened once and  and therefore we do not have sufficient instances to know the nature of the cause.

 

Intelligent design sounds like the ancient arguments from  for the existence of God that come from the medieval period and have been discredited because they are circular  because it already presumes what it claims to prove. God by definition is rational; order in the world is rational; therefore the world is created by God.  However, it does not deal with surd  aspects, like earthquakes, tidal waves and other irregular features of the universe.

 

Thomas accepted the world as eternal and not requiring a theistic God. He derived that notion from Revelation which then becomes the focus of the problem. It became Reason and Revelation.

 

Even if there should be a creator-theistic God as you assert, what does it add to our understanding of human nature, the nature of the world and the problems we have dealing with natural environment or human aberrations?   How do you make a jump from the concept of God sufficient to  create a world and the basis of salvation in the particular form which Christianity has posed it?  Of course, you accept revelation as given in the Bible, but does that really solve the problem without raising other questions  concerning the nature of revelation?  

 

I guess that one of our unresolvable issues between us is the theory of Culture Clash which you profess to see between Islam and Christianity. However, that idea ignores the wide areas where Muslims and Christians  have been living at peace. What about our so-called Muslim allies that we depend on? The area of conflict, largely created by ourselves, is in a particular region with its own  special history of colonialism and imperialism. It also discounts the 6 million Muslims who live in the US quite peacefully and in harmony with western values. In some cases they wish to keep their customs such as the habit-scarf, "kosher"  and prayers just as the Jewish hasids keep their ways, whom  no one considers  a threat or cystic and unacceptable in our culture. I frankly think, despite my Jewish ethnicity, that Netanyahu and Israel may be more a threat to everyone in the long run.  What about the culture clash with Likud and the settlements?  Advocating a culture clash can become a self-fulfilling  prophecy.  However, I think we have been over this ground previously. I think holding that idea is on the wrong side of history.

 

Thank you for your thoughts which are stimulating, even though they do not necessarily lead to agreement.

 

I hope you are not having too severe winter weather and that you keep healthy.

Best wishes,

Aloha

Al

 

[Gabe]

Willis,

Nice point about Updike and Robinson in your note to our old friend Al
Bloom.

Here below is a further attempt to explore that connection that I was
just about to post, with specific reference to Barth.

--Gabe

In reading HOME with an eye peeled for the theological premises at
work, I have found very helpful some of the later Barth’s words about
grace and truth at work outside the Bible and the Church (never
outside Christ for wherever there is “light” it is the light of
Christ) Could these things have been in the author’s mind as we find a
dearth of specifics about Word and Sacrament and what appear
frequently (although not always) to be only the horizontals of home
and family life?. Like Robinson, the just deceased John Updike
acknowledged his debt to Barth and, perhaps some of these notes are
being struck here. Of course, the later Bonhoeffer stressed the same
in LETTERS AND PAPERS FROM PRISON. Thus:

We may think of the lack of fear in the face of death which Christians
to their shame often display far less readily than non-Christians near
and far. We may think of the warm readiness to understand and forgive
which is not so frequently encountered in the Evangelical world just
because it has too good a knowledge of good and evil and in spite of
its acknowledgment that justification is by faith alone. Especially we
may think of a humanity which does not ask or weigh too long with whom
we are dealing in others, but in which we find a simple solidarity
with them and unreservedly take up their case…. (IV/3/1, 125 )

While Jesus Christ is the “one Word of God,” it is not “impossible
that words of this kind should be uttered outside the circle [of Bible
and Church] if the whole world of creation and history is the realm of
the lordship of God at whose right hand Jesus Christ is seated…so that
he is free to attest Himself or cause himself to be attested in
it” (IV/3/1, 97).Of course, all of these manifestations-- “parables of
the kingdom,” he calls them-- must be measured by the one Word
revealed in Jesus Christ, and understood to be his work “extra muros
ecclesiae.

[rjeasleasland]

Gabe: I agee. What I struggle with in parish life is the dim perception of
spiritual realities subtle or other wise. So there seems little empowerment,
joy, hope, community or effective witness by the local church. Our people
seem to have no vision, appetite for mission or personal spiritual
discernment. The two churches I now serve have turned down my offer to do
Bible study for example. The disconnect from the Story is obvious. I think
if you surveyed pastors in our denomination you would find that spiritual
weakness abounds. If people find something else somewhere else that looks
like real life, thats where they will go. If prison has more life than the
parish something stinks in Denmark. Thanks for helping us bang our heads
against the mystery. Where to next? Roger

[Willis Elliott]

Gabe,

 

Your note further lifted my spirit this morning - further, because of its consonance with my devotions this morning, which included writing that "walls can become windows & even doors."

1

The first sentence of the United Church of Canada's Confession of faith amounts to a summation of the Bible's message: "We live in God's world."  The living Word is at work on both sides of church walls ("intra/extra muros ecclesiae") - as classically stated in Barth & Bonhoeffer.  /  STORY:  Yesterday, as he was leaving our apartment, a deliveryman whom I'd never seen before, stopped, looked at some strange writing on the wall by the door, & asked, "What does that say?"  I translated the few sentences from LETTERS AND PAPERS FROM PRISON, including "God is with us in the evening as in the morning, and entirely reliable each new day."  His face became radiant, he trembled, and cried out "Oh!  That's so true!"  Whereupon we hugged.  (He's E-Free [Evangelical Free Church, a denomination prominent in the Midwest].)  Barth's sermons to prisoners say walls can become windows to see through, & Bonhoeffer's experience in prison adds that walls can become doors to walk through.  (Every week, our senior minister makes jail-visits.  And we in Open Forum sometimes hear of Roger's prison-visits.)

2

While the gospel breaks down walls of unnecessary division (e.g., as we supersessionists see it, the Jew/Gentile wall: Eph.2.14), it erects the church/world wall dramatically expressed in the '34 Barmen Declaration, which rebukes the "German Christians" for cooperating with the Nazis' dismantling of the church/state wall - as modernists Christians had cooperated with humanism in dismantling the church/world wall.

3

Irony: The orthodoxy of the cosmic-canonical Christ maintains the church/world wall (built by revelation) & is "generous" (intellectually, as in other ways) when it walks through the church-wall out into "the world."  (In this narrow sense, it is what Bonhoeffer meant by "religionless," though that does not exhaust B.'s meaning.) 

If it stays too long outside, it forgets where the door is, & finally doesn't care: it has become "worldly," humanist, even anti-Christian.  Pew reported that most Evangelicals (Evangelicals!) - was it 83%? - no longer believe that Christ is necessary to salvation.

4

The Christian language & the Christian mind nourish each other.  Without the former, the latter quickly dissolves into spiritual Alzheimer's.  Partly to keep alive this language/mind relationship, my morning devotions include meditation-prayer on a great hymn.  This morning it was a Thomas Ken (d.1711) on the practice of the Presence of God: "Awake, my soul, and with the sun thy daily stage of duty run; shake off dull sloth, and joyful rise to pay thy morning sacrifice: / Lord, I my vows to thee renew; disperse my sins as morning dew; guard my first springs of thought and will, and with thyself my spirit fill. / Direct, control, suggest, this day, all I design, or do, or say; that all my powers, with all their might, in thy soul glory may unite. / Praise God, from whom all blessings flow; praise him, all creatures here below; praise him above, ye heavenly host: praise Father, Son, and Holy Ghost."

5

True to the three Bs (Bible, Barth, Bonhoeffer), you say, "wherever there is 'light' it is the light of Christ."  Seen from above, that's revelation; seen from below, it's imperialism; seen from the side, it's anagogy (our awareness-consciousness being "led" in Greek's both senses of "ana": forward [as 'again'] & upward).  "Phos, photi" is photeric mysticism's phrase for it: all our light comes from the Light.

6

Barth's way of anagogy, as you here quote him, is that good "outside the church-walls" but conformable to Christ should be "understood to be his [Christ's] work."  That magnanimity & insight is in line with our Lord's persistent pointing to good  done outside the walls of Judaism; instance "the Good Samaritan."  The tribal spirit (ethnic, cultural, national, religious) is shocked & offended at insider-or-outsider claims that "they" (any outside the wall) are capable, & even productive, of any good worth noticing - especially when "they" produce undeniable heroes/scholars/saints.  /  In contrast, Jesus anticipated the global spirit all the way out to "love your enemies."  Now, in multiple global crises & threats, that spirit of "the humanum" (as a World Council of Churches program called it) is rising.  Witness Obama's world-reception as a sign of hope.  Witness also that Obama's hero, Lincoln, continues to rise "with malice toward none, with charity for all."

7

Water runs into all depressions, & God's Spirit flows wherever the human ego is depressed into humility.  "In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea with a glory in his bosom that transfigures you and me."  That glory is not of pride & violence (as in "John Brown's Body") but of humble openness to the Presence, power, & purpose of God (as in the hymn Julia Ward Howe wrote after hearing a Union Army unit pass by singing that war-song): "Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord...."  When Lincoln heard her hymn the year she wrote it (1862), with tears in his eyes he shouted, "Sing it again!"

8

One more story about that hymn.  It's phrase, "In the beauty of the lilies," stuck in John Updike's mind for some years until he concluded that a novel ought to be written under it.  It came out as "The Beauty of the Lilies," his most theological novel, with a forthright recognition of the existence/presence/purpose of God.  Today I heard him say (on a '95 clip from a Charlie Rose interview) that in it "God is active, one of the characters."

9

Thanks, Gabe, for the Barth quotes.  It's not depth but shallowness that is inimical to

magnanimity.  On with "generous orthodoxy," what I've long called "orthodox open"!

 

Grace and peace--

Willis

----- Original Message -----

From: Gabe

To: Confessing Christ Open Forum

Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 4:15 PM

[Gabe]

Willis, Linda, Roger,

Thanks for enlarging the heart and mind on this one.

Will probe the final pages, next time around.

--Gabe

[rjeasleasland]

GAbe, Willis or who: I am re-reading Kenneth Leech "Experiencing
God ---Theology as Spirituality". His chapter, 'God in the flesh,' helps me
rethink some of my comments on "Home" conserning the Incarnation and the
presence of the Holy Spirit working away at restoration. MR has a handle on
this through out her book.
My impatience prevented me from enjoying and toying with the story more
deeply like you all have. God always saves the best for last! Duh!
Thanks for endouring my blurts. There is a tremendous quietness and
contentment of those who have been refined by the Refiners fire, hope I get
there some day. It's the fire we hide from but to which we must surrender.
Glory's sufferings involve her surrender to the Refiner and become her
peace. Jack just has not figured it all out yet but when he finds his
bottom, what a wonderful surprise God has for him -------- On the spacious
and quiet prairie-------- in Jesus Love, Roger

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gabe" <gfa...@comcast.net>
To: "Confessing Christ Open Forum" <Confessi...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2009 8:13 AM
Subject: Re: God's PRESENCE / John Updike / Marilynne Robinson /
THEISM-PERSONALISM


>

[herb.davis]

Dear Book Readers, I finished the book.  I am not sure what it means. I do know what I think it means to me.  I think MR was teaching us that we have no lasting home here and we are restless until we rest in God.  But since I am rambling my first comment is on judgment.

 

1.   I was very judgmental of Jack and Glory and the Revs early in the reading.  I found others expressing this same in patience and judgment.  For me MR was playing to our American culture.  We expect people to “pick themselves up, dust themselves off and reinvent their lives.”  This is how our president defines us.  Get to the AA meeting and move on, find another lover and get a life, come out of prison like Chuck Carlson.  So we have little patience with an un American Jack who “has an impressive history of failure”p.301 and who is “A man of sorrows and acquainted with grief, and as one from whom men hid their face, Ah Jack.” -.318  We are American, we believe in the American Idol.  God helps those who help themselves.  So we judge failures and yet in relation to

            God we are all failures. “All have sinned and come short.” Rom.   Maybe MR is trying to          get us to see the difference between being American and Being Christian.

\

2.   I think she is trying to get us to distrust our idols.  She really does a wonderful job of exposing our idols and one of our chief idols is HOME>   Think of the idols in Gloria’s life She is conned not so much by the fake lover but by the idols.  “It was for the children and the sunlit house…that she had to give up mere money.” P.307

 

Rev. B know he has been coned by idols that he felt he could hold onto.  Jack, his church, his family, his town, his HOME.  He says, “Why did I think I could hold on to anything.  I lost my church.  I lost my wife.  They “call it home, but nobody stays..” p.296

       

3.   Death is the finally power that destroys idols.  And MR does a great job in holding our noise to dying.  The 1950-60’s may have been the last generation that cared for the dying.  Death and dying is now in the hands of professionals, Hospice, nursing home.  Death has lost it sting for us.  We don’t bath the fragial body of the old.  We don’t fed them, or carry their limp body from chair to bed.  We don’t dress them  They are dropped off at the rest HOME

    

4.   Jack is the one person in the book with the fewest idols.  He knows HOME can’t save him.  Maybe he is trying to tell Gloria that home can’t save her. 

 

5.   I will finish my comments on what I found to be language that is so powerful in this novel that it made me weary and I think it is the language that we often use in our communion.  More to come.  Peace, Herb

 

 

 

[Trost, Theodore]

Dear Confessors:

 

The following note was forwarded to me from Herman Waetjen, New Testament Professor emeritus at San Francisco Theological Seminary.  It was composed by Dr. Frank Miller, one of Browne Barr’s many friends from Sonoma County—where Browne lived in retirement and organized, for over a decade, a cooperative venture to collect food from local farmers and to deliver it to a shelter in San Francisco.

 

<<< 

 

Browne died last evening in Santa Rosa at a Hospital. He had contracted pneumonia, had a Heart attack and Kidney failure. What a long and sad ordeal that dear Man had to go through. I remember clearly, when we were at the Grape blessing at Fieldstone Winery and Brown was on oxygen and in the process of deciding on going through surgery to close up the hole in his heart, he said: if I do this, I am afraid I will lose my mind after the many hours of anesthesia !!

 

>>> 

 

After serving as minister of South Church, Congregational, in Middletown, Connecticut, Browne Barr became professor of homiletics at Yale Divinity School during the 1950s.  In the early 1960s he returned to the pastorate at First Congregational Church in Berkeley, California.  Browne served that church faithfully—through the revolution of the 1960s—for over two decades, during which time he authored, among other books, EAST BAY AND EDEN.  He also served on the editorial board of The Christian Century into the 1990s.  In the late 1970s, Browne became professor of homiletics and later dean of the faculty at San Francisco Theological Seminary, a seminary of the Presbyterian Church.  In the ecumenical spirit of the era, Browne’s presence drew a number of UCC ministerial candidates to SFTS (including me).  At SFTS, Browne wrote his book HIGH FLYING GEESE.  He moved from San Anselmo to Calistoga with his wife Leigh  after his retirement from the deanship in 1983.  He wrote the book NEVER TOO LATE TO BE LOVED:  HOW ONE COUPLE UNDER STRESS DISCOVERED JOY AND INTIMACY about their marriage in the aftermath of her death.  Browne Barr served for several years on the Steering Committee of Confessing Christ.  He was a great preacher, teacher, and friend.

 

O blest communion, fellowship divine!

We feebly struggle, they in glory shine;

Yet all are one in Thee, for all are Thine.

Alleluia!  Alleluia!

 

Ted Trost

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Confessi...@googlegroups.com [mailto:Confessi...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Gabe
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 4:15 PM

To: Confessing Christ Open Forum

[John Cedarleaf]

Ted,

Your note on Brown Barr reminds me that when you get to your mid 60's
you are more aware that indeed the "generations do rise and pass away
and age unto age calls them blessed". Brown Barr was one such saint
whose writings and work influenced many of my generation. In this age of
specialization and fewer pastor theologians, the loss of one such as he
reminds us that we need to hang on to those we still have closer and we
in CC are fortunate to have our share.

Blessings,

John

[Gabe]

Ted,

Thank you for passing on this word, sad as it is. We know how much he
meant to you and to countless others.He was a "prince of the church,"
now with his King.

--Gabe

On Feb 2, 3:04 pm, "Trost, Theodore" <ttr...@as.ua.edu> wrote:
> Dear Confessors:
>
> The following note was forwarded to me from Herman Waetjen, New
> Testament Professor emeritus at San Francisco Theological Seminary.  It
> was composed by Dr. Frank Miller, one of Browne Barr's many friends from

> Sonoma County-where Browne lived in retirement and organized, for over a

> decade, a cooperative venture to collect food from local farmers and to
> deliver it to a shelter in San Francisco.
>
> <<<
>
> Browne died last evening in Santa Rosa at a Hospital. He had contracted
> pneumonia, had a Heart attack and Kidney failure. What a long and sad
> ordeal that dear Man had to go through. I remember clearly, when we were
> at the Grape blessing at Fieldstone Winery and Brown was on oxygen and
> in the process of deciding on going through surgery to close up the hole
> in his heart, he said: if I do this, I am afraid I will lose my mind
> after the many hours of anesthesia !!
>
>
>
> After serving as minister of South Church, Congregational, in
> Middletown, Connecticut, Browne Barr became professor of homiletics at
> Yale Divinity School during the 1950s.  In the early 1960s he returned
> to the pastorate at First Congregational Church in Berkeley, California.

> Browne served that church faithfully-through the revolution of the
> 1960s-for over two decades, during which time he authored, among other

> with them and unreservedly take up their case.... (IV/3/1, 125  )

>
> While Jesus Christ is the "one Word of God," it is not "impossible
>
> that words of this kind should be uttered outside the circle [of Bible
>
> and Church] if the whole world of creation and history is the realm of
>

> the lordship of God at whose right hand Jesus Christ is seated...so that

[Richard Floyd]

Ted,

Thank you for sharing this news.  I have a photo at my desk of one of the early Confessing Christ Steering Committee meetings at Pittsfield.  We had all returned to our parsonage for postprandial drinks and conversation, and there is Browne smiling his great smile.  He was such good company, and so loved the church.  Many years before we had corresponded about P.T. Forsyth, about whose theology we shared a passion.  

There is a whole generation from Yale that remember him with honor and  affection.  He was committed to the great social witness of our church but never allowed it to be split off from sound teaching and thinking about the Gospel.  I am blessed to have known him.

“The communion of saints becomes more dear with each loss below.”

Peace,

Rick

Richard Floyd

rfl...@berkshire.rr.com

[Matt Crebbin]

Ted and Others,

 

It is a sad day for us and a Glorious one for the saints on high. A faithful and passionate witness has left us. Gone from us is a great bridge-builder, a passionate and thoughtful preacher, a focused and generous teacher, a sharp wit and a faithful follower of Christ. Were it not for Browne, I am not certain how the Word would have been planted and taken root within me. Here are a few words of his which seem appropriate to the moment:

 

“To be surprised to have our illusions of reality broken by the Word of God, is not to be destroyed, but to be saved. If we expect from the Bible the setting forth in clear terms of the absolute nature of reality, a final truth, then we shall be disappointed. The Word that comes is not a detailed description of a completed, final absolute. Rather it is a Living Word and it allows no such final word.

Expectations will be shattered to make room for the possibility of the experience of that mystery and for the invasion of that peace which passes all. . . understanding. The Word overflows all categories of the intellect because it is in absolute alliance with that God who in Christ shattered our one certainty, death, and has thus made possible all the eternal possibilities of him in whom is every beginning, every ending and no ending at all.”

AMEN

God’s Peace in Christ,

Matt Crebbin

 

---

From: Confessi...@googlegroups.com [mailto:Confessi...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Trost, Theodore
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 3:05 PM
To: Confessi...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Browne Barr

[The Right Rev'd Richard Hammond Price, OCC, Abbot, Order of Corpus Christi]

When I was 14-15 years old, I was one of over 3,000 at a gathering of the Connecticut Pilgrim Youth Fellowship (some of you may be old enough to remember PYF).  Browne Barr was the primary speaker, and he urged us to be open to God's call to service.  It was then that I had the first stirrings of discernment of a call to pastoral ministry.  I had conversations with him about these stirrings, and his encouragement and prayerful support became a significant factor in my process of discernment.  I am deeply grateful to him, and will hold him in blessed memory.

Rest eternal grant to him, O Lord, and may light perpetual shine upon him.

May he and all the Faithful Departed, through the mercy of God,  + rest in peace. 

+Richard

On Feb 2, 2009, at 3:04 PM, Trost, Theodore wrote:

[Wanda Lester]

In thinking back over this book I am struck by the different images of home held by each of the characters.  For Glory home was a white picket fence and children - the 50s dream of almost every young girl...what society said should be. Jack  seems to be seeking a place of acceptance - not only for himself but for the family he loved. For Jack the image of home seems to include not only his family but the town of Gilead.  Rev. B. longs for the home he no longer has.....wife and children gathered under the same roof - his church - the past unchanged and unchanging imaged by the house itself. You're right Herb...each of these are idols...and for each of them the letting go is a kind of death. 

Perhaps because I'm in the midst of preparations for Lent but this is feeling a bit like a Good Friday book to me ...with just a hint of Easter morning at the end.  

Wanda

[Willis Elliott]

Dear Confessors:

 

Just one memory of Browne Barr:

Overnighting in his Berkeley parsonage, I found that in the parsonage that evening he had a meeting with vineyard owners, seeking reconciliation with Caesar Chavez (vineyard-workers organizer, with whom my sons briefly worked).

 

Well, one more.  The last time I saw him was in Craigville.  To come to a Confessing Christ Steering Committee meeting, he'd flown from California, dragging an oxygen-cart.

 

Well, one more.  He chaired the committee that brought me onto the UCC national staff (UCBHM) in '60.

 

Pastor, scholar, humble Christian saint.  Lord, grant us more such!

 

Grace and peace--

Willis

---

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.16/1929 - Release Date: 2/1/2009 6:02 PM

[Gabe]

Wanda, Herb and book readers,

What to make of these final pages of HOME? Perhaps the review in the
current issue of THE CHRISTIAN CENTURY will shed some light on it and
the rest of the book. (The issue hasn’t arrived in our house yet but
our Theological Tabletalk folk received theirs and today spoke highly
of it.)

Is there anything in these pages that give a key to what has gone
before? The same dreariness, sadness, frustration, misunderstandings,
and tears that pervade these pages, as noted by all our readers’
previous comments about earlier ones. And the same question comes up:
what really is “home” in this novel? Is it only at the End, our
eschatological Homecoming? Surely that note is here in the unfulfilled
hopes of all the characters, yet the hint that these are not the last
Word on the way the world works. This may be what Herb is seeing, our
this-worldly idolatries exposed and yet the final “yes” to a More.

But is there not also a More to be found amidst the dreariness,
sadness, frustration, misunderstandings and tears? Here Barth helps me
look for that More, as in the last passages I quoted from him. Just
because Christ is the risen and ruling Lord of this fallen world, we
have a call to look for those glimmers of grace amidst the
overwhelming evidence of the contrary.

The appearance of Robert in the final pages, even talk of him maybe
becoming a preacher (in spite of the flaws of the preacher that the
novel exposes), surely is some sort of such glimmer. I believe Willis
mentioned this earlier. But why not also the appearance here of Della
too and her desire to reconnect with Jack in spite of all she knows
about him, leaving addresses with Glory in case she is in touch with
Jack ? And why not Glory, who , in spite of her tears over Jack’s back-
and-forth ways, her own failed engagement, frustrated hopes for
children and phantasizing of desired relic-less “home” still shows
signs of an unmerited love for the prodigal (human-scale agape)? It’s
interesting that a feminist interpretation (cited in an earlier
review) finds that grace too, but in her simple household acts of
caring. And why not Jack himself, who for all of his prodigal ways, is
not without moments of grace? And why not the old ministers, so much
children of the culture of the 50s vis a vis civil rights and
politics, and so intransigent when we would hope for signs of a
biblical forgiveness that precedes and invites penitence, yet more
than a few times showing something more, and even in these pages
celebrating a sacramental grace? And one could go on.

What then is “home”? I thought earlier it might be Glory understood as
a relationship, but not a place, given the author’s reminder to us of
hymnic associations of the two words. Now I am wondering if it’s not,
after all, “this old house” and all its associations, as suggested by
some things in these concluding pages. Here (and through-out) we see
incidents of gut-wrenching human frailty, and yet also signs of grace
in, with and under both the place and the persons connected therewith.
Such a home is no substitute for the ultimate Homecoming, but could
well be a hope and a hint of the same.

--Gabe

On Feb 3, 9:23 am, Wanda Lester <windy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In thinking back over this book I am struck by the different images of home
> held by each of the characters.  For Glory home was a white picket fence and
> children - the 50s dream of almost every young girl...what society said
> should be. Jack  seems to be seeking a place of acceptance - not only for
> himself but for the family he loved. For Jack the image of home seems to
> include not only his family but the town of Gilead.  Rev. B. longs for the
> home he no longer has.....wife and children gathered under the same roof -
> his church - the past unchanged and unchanging imaged by the house itself.
> You're right Herb...each of these are idols...and for each of them the
> letting go is a kind of death.
> Perhaps because I'm in the midst of preparations for Lent but this is
> feeling a bit like a Good Friday book to me ...with just a hint of Easter
> morning at the end.
> Wanda
>

[jeasleasland]

Brilliant buddy: I spent some serious pastoral time in the Nursing Home in Wesstingon Springs over the weekend. Your # 3 is too vividly true! We pay others to be intimate with our parents and grandparents needs and avoid death at all costs because we are so busy polishing and protecting our idols!!

     So we trash the value of human life on both ends. We don't care about the abusive way our youth are growing up. We see them deeply  into, violence and sexual degredation and just wring our hands and do nothing.  We don't care about our elderly enough to connect them with young people in their dying.

      We have made age such an anathama that we have split up our congregations into old and young and invited disfunction in both. The mark of a healthy church is how we honor the human person and whole human family.

     The theology of the Incarnation has turned into the theology of accommodation of the culture. Descency and respect  decline when orthodox Christiology is denied the congregation.

     I am serving two UCC congregations 8 miles apart, one in town and one in the country. You would not believe the difference. The country church is intergenerational and very healthy, full of life and care about both ends of the human life span.  The other church is all elderly and is just frozen in their disfunction. Defensive, divisive, and with out leadership or a vision.

     May "Home" will wake up some Cleveland types so we can get back to evangelizing youth by inviting them into healthy intergeneralional churches. 

     I hope to initiate an adopt a grandchild program and some other ideas to get that old group some hope that the church has a future. God is in the Restoration business!! Blessings Herb, young as ever in thought and hope!!!  Sanctification is real keep passing it on----------- blessings on the prairie Roger

[jeasleasland]

Ocean Heart, Gabe: In the chapter, GOD INTHE FLESH in Kenneth Leech's
"Experiencing God, Theology as Spritituality", Leech claims that the Eastern
Church does a much better job of affirming the Incarnation than the West
has. Does the teaching of Augustin and then Calvin put so much emphasis on
sin that the theology of the Incarnation is nearly lost, is that what Barth
and you are trying to say? Leech makes a compelling case that the liturgy
and the Eucharist are designed to keep the Incarnation formost in worship
and that the Eastern Church has not lost this goal. Have we put too much
weight on preaching? Has our preaching become dis-affirming?Maybe our
worship has become too preacher centered.(Dah look at the mega church and
the TV church). I wonder if the "detachment" from the surfacing or seeing of
grace at work in ourselves and others so prevalent out there does not have
some root as our failure to affirm the "Jesus Christ" in eachother? Does
this originate in an impoverished theology of the Incarnation? Herb
confessed his judgementalism first, then I did, then others. Willis jumped
out of the boat a couple of times. I think I have suffered some "dualism"
in my own sense of refusal to celebrate, "Christ in you the hope of Gory!"
in the last few years. Maybe Herb is right that gnosticism has got to us
all! We thought Jesus contemporaries were tough on the "unclean", what
about us?
As I try to think of what ministry I have done that brought the sense
of grace to the surface in others, I think it was always with an attitude
that, " this IS the one that God so loved that He gave His Son to die for".
Do we forget that the Incarnate Jesus has already been here before we are?
Certainly Jesus wants to come alive in every soul, how can we help? I said
this over and over to myself in my relationship to my bi-polar sister who
would seem to look for horrific evil to enjoy in her high states. What she
did makes Jack look like a Sunday School Saint. But her baptism in Christ
never left her. She had a wonderful personal renewal of faith just a few
months before she died! Praise to the Blood of the Lamb!
If the Church writes off the preciousness of every single person no
mater how far their "Jackness" has gone then we really do NOT care enough to
leave the 99 and go after the 1. Nor do we believe much in Incarnational
power.
I think this is what burns pastors out, the parish folk will NOT
follow or celbrate with them in the grand discovery of grace coming alive in
the "UNCLEAN". OR THE LIFE LONG CHURCH MEMBER THAT NEEDS A GOOD
LOVING---------- You are one graceful dude Gabe, thanks FOR KEEPING US ON
THE GRACE TRAIL-------- LOVE--------- Roger "If the flesh is not saved,
then the Lord did not redeem us with his blood, the chalice of the Eucharist
is not a share in his blood, and the bread which we break is not a share in
his body. For the blood cannot exist apart from veins and flesh and the rest
of the human substance which the Word of God truly became is order to redeem
us." Irenaeus

[Willis Elliott]

Thanks, Gabe.  Three  comments:

1

In rereading Apollonius of Tyana (Philostratus' 2-vol. "The Life of..."), Paul's outstanding pagan-preacher competitor, I came upon a passage which spoke to me of JACK's borderline un/believing (both!).  A priest of Asclepios (the healing god to whom the dying Socrates instructed the offering of "a cock"), A.T. says A.'s priests were able to develop medicine because A. was son of Apollo (pais Apollonos), who conveyed medicinal wisdom to him by divination.  In the same section (1.3.44), he says that without "prophetic wisdom," medics would not have thought of using "the deadliest poisons" from "venemous creatures" to cure diseases (a startling anticipa- tion of modern immunology).  /  In the next section, we come upon what I'm calling here borderline un/believing, the on-the-fence position between faith & unbelief.  A Pythagorean philosopher as well as an Asclepian healer, A. in India had his mind blown by the mysterious & mythical, & reserved judgment, "for there is much to be gained by neither believing nor disbelieving [pisteu-/apisteu-] everything."  /  Part of the appeal of "Home" is Jack's un/belief, his wandering in his mind (as his feet wandered in unsettledness) from belief to unbelief & back.  Rev. Ames pedobaptized him, but he does not consider himself a Christian, yet....

2

....which leads directly to my second comment.  The Harv. critic (Will Joyner) whose Christian Century (2.10.09) review you mention (below) contrasts the unattractive "blind certainty" of some Christians with the attractive "Christian life...as a witness of personal reverence, imperfect social dedication and perpetual intellectual exploration" - the latter descriptive of "Robinson's odd, powerful body of thought to be applied to our national cultural landscape."  Apollonius in India, & Jack, are here-&-now!

3

We in Confessing Christ affirm the gospel without "blind certainty" or Jack-like indecision-noncommitment.  Our "generous orthodoxy" or "orthodoxy  open" combines personal reverence, social dedication, & perpetual intellectual exploration with biblical-classical-trinitarian faith.  How to make our position as appealing as blind certainty is to some & Robinson's religion (at least in "Gilead" & "Home") is to others?

 

Grace and peace--

Willis

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Gabe

To: Confessing Christ Open Forum

Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 1:22 PM

Subject: Re: Rambling Comments on HOME

[Gabe]

Prairie Roger,

Nice reference, Roger, to book on "spirituality." I'll put it into the
bibliography on the Craigville Colloquy website (and assume you will
be there for "Spirituality and the Holy Spirit: A New Awakening for
the Church?", July 13-17 :) ) Also your general comments appreciated.

We should have the balance in worship practice that we say we have as
a church of both Word and Sacrament, but sadly the preacher-
centeredness has won over all along the conservative-liberal
continuum. We do have the Mercersburg theology in the UCC to remind us
of the Incarnation and the sacramental/liturgical, but it too is a yet
undiscovered treasure (even though it impacted our Book of Worship).

Being a Barthianized Niebuhrian Mercersburger (in short, an
ecumaniac) , I can't say we have over-emphasized sin. It is almost
lost from view in the Manichaean posture of churches on political
issues, again all along the theological/ecclesial spectrum, and the
hubris as to who is in and who is out on the self-promotion of
denominations. But sin is not the last word, just the first. Hence
Barth on the risen and ruling Christ and thus a convergence at that
point with Orthodoxy's Easter accent.

The Eastern Orthodox tradition certainly has a charism to share with
the rest of us. However, having seen them up close (my father was
Syrian Orthodox and brought the family into that ethos from time to
time), there is a lot missing when it comes to the Augustinian grasp
of sin in the Western Churches. We need both Calvary and Easter in our
atonement teaching and preaching. (See the next issue of the Reformed
journal, Perspectives, for a three-way conversation on this, gettable
online)

Oceanic Gabe today snowed in

[The Right Rev'd Richard Hammond Price, OCC, Abbot, Order of Corpus Christi]

Gabe:

The Order of Corpus Christi, which is founded on the theology of
Mercersburg, witnesses to the church a worship of Word and Sacrament
every Sunday and festival day of the church year. Several churches
served by brothers and sisters of the Order have/are moving in this
direction. In addition, the Order has an ongoing project of
developing liturgies of Word and Sacrament based on the Common
Lectionary. This material will be "tested" within the Order, and
eventually made available to those clergy and congregations who seek
to a normative worship of God in the proclamation of the word and the
receiving of Christ's body and blood in Holy Eucharist.

+Richard

[jeasleasland]

Ocean Mind and Heart: As expected you pointed to the necessary balance and
put hope and grace far above the power of sin. I have given sin to much
credit in my own life some times but Word and Sacrament always pull us into
the heart of God and save us from our own imaginations. The blessings of
your wisdom always give me peace. Thanks--------Roger

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gabe" <gfa...@comcast.net>
To: "Confessing Christ Open Forum" <Confessi...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 7:30 AM
Subject: Re: Rambling Comments on HOME

[herb.davis]

Matt. Thanks for tht quote from Barr.  I was a wonderful gift to us in Confessing Christ.  Always hopeful, wise and strong.  Herb

 

[herb.davis]

Matt.  I miss spoke.  I meant He was a wonderful gift to us. (the devil made me put the wrong pronoun)  Herb

-----Original Message-----
From: Confessi...@googlegroups.com [mailto:Confessi...@googlegroups.com]On Behalf Of herb.davis
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 1:41 PM
To: Confessi...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: Browne Barr

Matt. Thanks for tht quote from Barr. [herb.davis] He  was a wonderful gift to us in Confessing Christ.  Always hopeful, wise and strong.  Herb

 

[herb.davis]

Dear Gabe, Wanda, other book Readers, One sees lots of glimers of grace in
the novel. Not only do we have a right to look for the glimmers but to
enjoy and celebrate them. But it is always a glimmer not the kingdom, it is
a wiff not the full feast. It seems at the end of the novel Jack and
Gloria, Rev B and maybe Della accept this. Jack knows there is no full
reconcilation with his Father, Ames or the town and he leaves. Gloria knows
tht her future is not in the sunlite house with children but the old home
with old musty surrounding that somehow is home, but she can still cook
chicken and dumblings and welcome the family "home" and connect them to the
past. Rev. B is dying. Della knows she can't live in Jack's town. She is
worried about getting home without trouble but the grandson might be a
preacher in a new day. What we find are not solutions but mysteries we
can't fully understand or control. As Willis says uncertainities. We get
inpatient with not being able to fix the relationships. MR wants us to live
with the glimber, the mystery, the uncertanities. Will Jack's son end up at
the preacher in the congregtional church in the future. Maybe and in that
day his presence will still be a glimmer. Living between the times,
celebrating His death until he comes, we need gentleness, kindness,
forgiveness more than getting it right. We need Word and Sacrament and the
Word is all over this novel, scripture is quoted, hymns are sung, the
sacrament is celebrated, the texts are alive. We need to cling to the
cross. Now MR does say that Jack is the man of sorrows and I think the one
with less illusions. There are no neat resolutions in the novel. No goals
that are reached. No planning process that works. No therpy that heals.
But there are a lot of glimmers of grace. The uncertainity is not about the
Lord but about how we live our lives between the times, as we get wiffs of
the heavenly banquet. The Lord is wonderful that is the firm confession. A
confession made by a woman who is disappointed by her lover, her brother,
her family but can still say, "The Lord is Wonderful." and he has answered
her fathers prayers. I really enjoyed the read and the discussion. Herb

-----Original Message-----
From: Confessi...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:Confessi...@googlegroups.com]On Behalf Of Gabe
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 2:23 PM
To: Confessing Christ Open Forum
Subject: Re: Rambling Comments on HOME

[Gabe]

Herb,

Your imagery is right on. Options: Full course? First course?
Aperitif? Whiff?... Where does "foretaste" come in?

Here is a recent comment from MR on interpreting Home. Where does
that fit into the mealtime options...and your observations? It would
seem she agrees that "The Lord is wonderful."

"My assumption is that grace is from God and is manifest in ways that
are by no means always obvious to us, and also that the love of God is
broader than our imagination of it is... "

--Gabe

[jeasleasland]

Herb: I thought you would get around to the mystery revealed in the cross. I
was going to ask that question: is the inner life of God revealed in the
cross at work in the book through the writer. MR does pose the question, "is
God who we want Him to be(idol) or will we let Him be who He is in the
cross, the One who willingly enters our pain and death(Incarnate)?" We want
that glimmer to be a sparkle or a brilliant light but between Jesus
inaugeration of the Kingdom and its fullness the light seem to flicker and
nearly go out so many times. For those who see the light so brightly that
they MUST be pastors, teachers or other intense forms of called
ministries------we can get caught in the trap of wanting or insisting that
God should turn up the intensity of the beam. It takes courage and
endourance to enter the pain and death of others intentionally as a calling.
Saints survive this "terror", the rest ofus just stumble and bumble along
half lost ourselves most of the time.( I speack for myself here). But I know
a worse "terror"; thinking you no longer CAN enter the "holy ground" of
human pain and death with Jesus at your side! The terrible beauty for me is
that Jesus refuses to let us go even when we try let go of Him. Wonder and
full-------------from the prairie-- Roger

----- Original Message -----
From: "herb.davis" <herb....@mindspring.com>
To: <Confessi...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 10:30 PM
Subject: RE: Rambling Comments on HOME

[Gabe]

[Gabe]

+Richard,

A belated word of thanks for the witness of the Order in the UCC and
beyond. Hope you will have a presence at the 2009 colloquy
on"Spirituality and the Holy Spirit": A new Awakening for the
Church?," July 14-17.

--Gabe



On Feb 4, 9:16 am, "The Right Rev'd Richard Hammond Price, OCC, Abbot,

[Gabe]

Home Readers,

I though we might be done with HOME, but not quite. I've been sending
various comments in our Open Forum to her, especially those critical
of her approach, and here below is a portion of her latest reply.
Response welcomed.

--Gabe

.....................................................................................
Dear GF,

"...... It has been interesting to me to see how many of my best
interpreters are Catholic. Has our branch of the faith really become
as this-worldly as people say? It seems as if the writers you
forward to me feel my characters are judged insofar as they fail to
find resolution etsi Deus non daretur, in effect. In the terms of
this world. I would hope to suggest that God's terms are of a
different order, comprehended, for my purposes, in the word grace. We
can make judgments about sin--first of all of ourselves as sinners,
then as we try to deal with it as a grief-bearing reality in the
world. But sin is as nothing over against grace. About grace we can
make no judgments. The parable is the Return of the Prodigal, not the
Reform of the Prodigal.

Best,
MR

[Willis Elliott]

Very revealing MR comments, Gabe.

1

I've known nothing about her church, but here she identifies herself (does she not?) as Protestant: "our branch of the faith."

2

We (Protestants) are, in comparison with Catholics, "this-worldly," judging "in terms of this world."  More Word (including judgment), less Sacrament (grace as negating sin). 

3

When the Word/Sacrament balance is lost, the gospel is distorted:

Overstress Word, & grace is obscured by legalism & moralism.

Overstress Sacrament, & righteousness is obscured by immoral grace.

4

How restore the lost balance?

....In Word/legalism/moralism situations, emphasize GRACE.  Against the scribes (Word-masters), Jesus did this (as MR well says, "the Return of the Prodigal, not the Reform of the Prodigal").  The Jewish authorities saw his gracious unconventionality as immoral.  His answer was (as I said) that he was being God-like: God is just too loving to let morality obstruct his grace.  Shocking!  Jesus critics were right: you can't run a society that way - all hugs, no court.  But instead of instructing on how to run a society, Jesus was announcing society's replacement by "the kingdom of God."  Upon becoming society's authorities, Jesus' followers had to live (have to live) between a rock (here-&-now power-responsibilities) & a hard place ("the kingdom of God" not yet full-come): that's "Christian ethics," realistic & ambiguous. 

....In Sacrament/grace situations, emphasize RIGHTEOUSNESS.  Protestantism did that over against Catholic priestcraft, which had sacramentalized grace, confining its flow to priestly faucets.  This social-control confinement corrupted both clergy (who abused their assumed numinous powers) & laity (who relaxed their morals, knowing that sacramental confession would relieve them of guilt).

5

Protestantism's problem was that in the redistribution of priestcraft ("the priesthood of all believers"), grace - freed from professional priestcraft - became captive to righteousness, which thus acquired the aura of holiness (ethics replacing religion, as Kierkegaard said). (Tillich was correct in saying that Protestantism is an incomplete religion.)  /   Marilynne Robinson's "Gilead" is a Protestant community entirely separate from Catholicism, frozen in its graceless "righteousness."  Jack is the primary victim of this calcified moralism: his fundamental identity (except occasionally to his father & to sister Glory) is as sinner.  The reader of "Gilead" & "Home" is surprised, & the narrative's bleakness is relieved, by glimmers of grace & the last sentence: "The Lord is wonderful."  /  MR knows the 1950s Protestant small town.  I wonder how she would do on a novel about a 1950s Catholic small town.

6

MR says (below) "many of my best interpreters are Catholic."  I'd like to know what she makes of this in addition to her contrast with liberal-Protestants' judging "in the terms of this world."  (Or, by "our branch of the faith," does she mean all Protestants?  Our Am.Bap. congregation, with a strong accent on grace, has many ex-Catholics in flight from legalism.)

7

In 1918 (when I was born), our urban community was Protestant.  By 1922, it had become largely Catholic, & my parents - to escape the lowered-moral influence on us children - moved the family to a largely Protestant suburb.  The Catholics, having weekly access to sacramental grace, were more relaxed about morals.  E.g., my older sister came home from school with the Catholic kids' foul, blasphemous language.  With the choice of institutionalized grace or righteousness, my parents' preference was righteousness.  Two demonic choices: grace captive to institution, righteousness functioning as religion.  As I said in sec.4, "how restore the lost balance?"  "Gilead" & "Home" may be prolegomenal to addressing this question, though they attack the religion which in Am. it's most acceptable to attack, viz. Protestantism.

8

MR generalizes about "the writers you forward to me": I don't fit her description, so I presume you've forwarded nothing of mine to her (beyond my commenting on a single paragraph of hers).  And when she says "my characters are judged," does she mean by "the writers"?  And does she mean, by "judged," "condemned"?

9

"Grace" is MR's antonym to the religion of "the writers you [GF] forward to" her.  This has a neo-Reformation ring: "I would hope to suggest that God's terms are of a different order [from "worldly"], comprehended, for my purposes, in the word grace.  We can make judgments about sin....But sin is as nothing over against grace.  About grace we can make no judgments."

9.1

In Episcopal worship this morning, I was struck by the language of "grace" in prayerbook & hymnal.  At his last life-stage, John Updike switched from the Congregational to the Episcopal church.  I wonder if his "Rabbit" was the model for MR's "Jack": there's a gracious gentleness in these authors' shaping of these protagonists.

9.2

While she says we can judge ourselves "about sin," she does not say we can judge others.  Rather, her parallel with self-judgment is rather dealing with sin as "a grief-bearing reality in the world."  Jesus says "Condemn not," but we must judge.

9.3

She's a bit too lyrical: "Sin is as nothing over against grace."  Jack's story would seem almost the reverse: grace was as nothing over against sin.  The Cross teaches the weight of both sin & grace.

9.4

Also a bit too lyrical: "About grace we can make no judgments."  The mystery & majesty of grace should awe us, but not cancel our critical consciousness.  Grace can be abused: one effect of Luther's movement was a decline in public morals.  Ro.6.1-2 NLT: "...should we keep on sinning so that God can show us more and more of his wonderful grace?  Of course not!"

 

Thanks to MR for conversing with us about her work.  Most artists refuse.

 

Grace and peace--

Willis

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Gabe

To: Confessing Christ Open Forum

Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2009 12:51 PM

Subject: Re: Rambling Comments on HOME

---

No virus found in this incoming message.

Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.233 / Virus Database: 270.10.19/1939 - Release Date: 02/04/09 08:24:00

[jeasleasland]

Gabe: Just heard the Gather Vocal Band sing "Home". Ye-All should give it a
listen!-------- The prairie braces for the forces of the big thaw!!-----
Blessings Roger

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gabe" <gfa...@comcast.net>
To: "Confessing Christ Open Forum" <Confessi...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2009 12:33 PM
Subject: Re: Rambling Comments on HOME

[herb.davis]

Dear Gabe, Willis and other book readers,  Couple of comments:

1.  For me the return of the prodigal doesn't work.  Reference to Luke 15 isn't helpful since I don't see Jack as a prodigal and in the prodigal the son is not reformed but restored, redeemed.  His status is changed from lost to found, from dead to alive.  In the novel Jack's status is not changed and in a sense he gives hope and insight to Gloria.

 

2.  I love her comment that we are too "this-worldly."  I found the Christian Century review weak.  It didn't seem to  say anything and I think this is the key issue.  Its the question of whiff or feast and this worldly focus on making the feast happen rather than waiting, praying, hoping, for the feast that is to come.  Her early comment that "Home" in 19-20 century hymns was never our earthly home but our heavenly HOME.  Now if you read the UCC news and most of UCC (mainline literature) heaven is often missing.  What is important and the emphasis of our commune is our work here.  We don't have much confidence in the Kingdom to come.    The trick is how to fall in love with Jesus and do works of justice and peace without falling  in love with our good deeds.  Or in my reading of Home, how to fall in love with the wonderful Lord and not fall in love with the Broughton family house, farm and town. 

 

3.  A few months ago Dexter left us to I assume join the Catholic communion.  One of his comments was there was no eternal, heavenly sense of peace in the UCC.  Was he saying we have become "too this-worldly"?

 

4.  I think this novel is a very strong confessional novel.  It is embarrassing confessional in our age.  The language of confession is always the affirmation of God is Love, God is Father, the Lord saves, the Lord is wonderful.

 

5.  The issues that Willis raises is extremely important for us to discuss.  He is right I think that the Gospel has no basis for governance of this world.  I think Niebuhr was saying the same thing.  There is an article in Jan. issue of FIRST THINGS,"Christianity Face to Face with Islam" which indicates that Christianity which was established for 300 or 400 years in North Africa was wiped out in 100 years by the way Islam ordered society.  The way Sunday is now seen as a day for consuming and the inability of the culture to sustain traditional marriage indicated that Christians may have a very think influence on the secular west.  It that related to Willis concern?  Peace, Herb

 

[John Cedarleaf]

Herb et. al.,

I was struck also by the "this-worldly" comment. It is interesting that
we don't have much to say about heaven, do we? Your comment about the
use of "Home" in hymns of the 19th and 20th century, reminded me of the
old hymnal of the Evangelical Covenant Church of my boyhood. In the 1931
edition there is a section entitled, "Songs of the Homeland" and in the
1951 it is called "Heaven and Homeland", both the stress on the world is
not my home. It is interesting(at least to me!) that in the 1931 edition
there are 19 such hymns and in the 51 edition, 21 such hymns. Sometimes
I wonder though, when the old Swedes were singing of the homeland, if
they meant heaven or Sweden!! Among the various American evangelical
gospel hymns on this topic are some sweet Swedish ones, translated, one
such is, in English, "How Beautiful,Serene and Grand", (Hem det gar)
written by Nils Frykman(1842-1911).

"How beautiful, serene and grand Our path lies here below,
When gently led by our Father's hand In peace we homeward to!
Homeward bound, Homeward bound; Soon in heaven shall rest be found!
In mansions bright In lands of light, Sweet songs of joy resound,
In mansions bright In lands of light, Sweet songs of joy resound."

When you think of the tough times these immigrants had you can
appreciate the second verse:

"Though stress of life at times severe, And tears bedim our sight,
Yet thoughts of glory remove all fear And give us pure delight."

I think that these Swedish pietists lived in this world, but somewhat
lightly, not confusing one home with the other; not a bad idea, perhaps.

John

[Gabe]

Willis and Herb,

These detailed reflections are very penetrating.. I'll send them on to
MR. In fact, I have already replied to her note saying she does not
quite understand the source of critical comments about this or that in
HOME, since they have nothing to do with some sort of secular
reductionism, but with the search in the novel for the cross and
resurrection. In fact, I thought she was working out of the same
perspective given her debt to Calvin, Barth, Bonhoeffer et al.

In the same note, she spoke about a difference between my
understanding of the "more truth and light" of that other Robinson and
her interpretation of his memorable saying in which she appears to
view any God-given newness as conceivably being in sharp
juxtaposition to what went before in central Christian teaching . For
what it's worth, here is my reply, with a side wink at her remark
about Catholics being her best interpreters, perhaps with an
evangelical catholic/Mercersburg take in mind. Incidentally , Willis,
she is a member of a UCC congregation in Iowa.

"As to our respective interpretations of the 17th century Robinson,
they may have something to do with differing views of the church. My
image of “trajectory” is a way of acknowledging that the Holy Spirit
has been present through-out its history, assuring the custodianship
of the gospel by the church ecumenical (whatever its many defections
from it}, as in its stewardship of key doctrines such as the Trinity
and the Person of Christ, with interpretive freshness of the same in
ever-new contexts, including the correction of past misunderstandings.
I have tried to say this in various writings, and I believe this
continuity-discontinuity stands in the stream of Calvin, Barth and
Bonhoeffer. Actually such an understanding of “more truth and light”
from the one Word is kindred to classical Catholic teaching on the
development of doctrine. So Avery Dulles kindly remarked in his MODELS
OF REVELATION quoting something I had written:



“In the words of Gabriel Fackre

There is a sound instinct in all the models that respond to the new
pluralism by attempting to reformulate the Christian doctrine of
redemption in a more universal fashion. Doctrine does develop in
response to new settings in which the Christian community finds
itself. Plural shock can so impact our received theological traditions
that we are led to a deeper insight into basic faith. But doctrine
which does so develops along the lines of the original trajectory. It
renders more explicit what was implicit and coheres with the primal
norm of the Gospel of Jesus Christ” (191)..........

---Gabe

..............................................................................................................................................

[jeasleasland]

Herb and book reading souls: Here is another take:    Glory finds a "mystical" union with God in Christ. She discovers where Home is, the Kingdom. It is not that she solves all the ambivalence in herself or in those around her but she has found the path, she knows her destiny.  She does not deny the pain and remorse or lost expectations in her life in the "world" all the idols etc.  In her surrender she discovers she does not NEED to chase the golden carrots of the world. Union with God is fulfillment enough. Serving her family and others in Gilead will be her mission, joy and ministry, her way to live Christian spirituality not just know about it.

     She loves her brother so much and she longs for him to have what she has but she knows she can not rescue him. She simple turns him over to God and waits like the Father does in the prodical story. Jack is not ready to recieve. She waits in pain.

     She shows the power of sanctification. Both Word and Sacrament,  have found her in her suffering and now in her sacrificial serving.

    To Catholics she may look ready for monastic life. "Home" is her temporary place to do priestly work. She has transcended the shallow moralisms of the religion of her youth which could not overcome the depths of the worlds ability to suck life out her.  She discovers the "wonderful God" below the abyss or in the abyss. Thomas merton wrote: "The human soul is still the image of God, and no matter how far it travels from him into the region of unreality, it never becomes so completely unreal that its original destiny can cease to torment it with a need to return it itself in God and become once again real."

     There is still loads of hope for Jack.  Perhaps MR is offering an invitation in her confession and testimony;  grace not only seeks us and finds us it also RULES from the tree!------- She is perhaps right in assuming that just about everybody in America has seen the cross but the cross awaits those who need to enter its mystery and terrible beauty!----------------Just a thought from that good old land of grass and cows-----------Roger 

----- Original Message -----

From: herb.davis

To: Confessi...@googlegroups.com

[Gabe]

Brother Roger,

Your comment about the "tree," the cross, may be echoing MR 's own
view : "... we have allowed some of the most important and radical of
our doctrines to be forgotten. Where is the theology of the cross?
Is there no longer any belief that sorrow also falls under the shadow
of the cross?..."

I wonder if that comment reflects a reaction to the cover story of the
issue of the current Christian Century, the same issue in which her
book was(poorly) reviewed. The article in question is: "God Does Not
Require Blood." I hope Rick Floyd writes a letter to the editor.

--Gabe

[jeasleasland]

Deep Water Brother: The whole house of orthodoxy crumbles and falls without
the Incarnation. Ofcourse it is the Story of Incarnation and how it is
wrapped around the human condition that makes the Story a universal Story.
MR has been to the cross and Jesus touched her own human need or else she
would not bother with the spinning of such tales around the deepest
elemental aspect of the Faith.The cross is out to find everyone who seeks.
Blessings on the day Gabe------------Roger

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gabe" <gfa...@comcast.net>

[Andy Lang]

Please keep in your prayers Margaret Thomas who died after an illness at age 94. She was the mother of John Thomas, and had been in poor health for some time.

 

Condolences and prayers can be left in the i.UCC prayer chapel forum at http://i.ucc.org/Forums/tabid/72/forumid/43/postid/15414/view/topic/Default.aspx.
 

Over the coming week, we'll be praying for Margarent and the Thomas family during our real-time prayer services at i.UCC -- 12 noon and 9 p.m. (Eastern).

 

Thanks,

 

Andy Lang
Cleveland, OH
216-926-6262
lang...@sbcglobal.net
http://i.UCC.org
http://langohio.blogspot.com

---

From: jeasleasland <jeas...@pie.midco.net>
To: Confessi...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 9:49:34 AM

[Andy Lang]

In my previous note, I accidentally included the thread of an unrelated conversation here. If you forward this note to anyone, please use this version. Thanks!

Andy

---

From: Andy Lang <lang...@sbcglobal.net>
To: Confessi...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 10:08:26 AM
Subject: John Thomas' mother

[Willis Elliott]

Roger says (of Glory & Jack),

     She loves her brother so much and she longs for him to have what she has but she knows she can not rescue him. She simple turns him over to God and waits like the Father does in the prodical story. Jack is not ready to recieve. She waits in pain.

 

 

Yes, Roger,

SHE (Glory) is HE (the waiting father of L.15).

Glory would like to refurbish the liviingroom, but knows that Jack (next time he shows up) wants to see it unchanged....

 

Your reference to the Cross reminds me of Gabe's telling MR that our CC comments imply, where they do not state, Cross & Resurrection, & are not "worldly."

 

Grace and peace--

Willis

 

[jeasleasland]

Willis: I don't think MR feminizes God, if my speculation was some where near on. Does your note imply that she does? I think that there are some missing links in the book. The sense of journey and wilderness is there but the "transformations" along the way don't seem to quite happen. It is like maybe no one makes it all the way to the cross and is surprised by the Incarnation, how it comes and when it comes.   Blessings       Roger

----- Original Message -----

From: Willis Elliott

To: Confessi...@googlegroups.com

[Wanda Lester]

Roger,

 

I don't agree that "transformations along the way don't seem to quite happen".  Oh, Jack doesn't quit drinking...and Glory doesn't find the "white picket fenced home" she longs for and the relationship between Jack and Ames and his father aren't transformed into what any of them (or we ourselves actually) want, but in and amongst the daily struggles of this family, grace does seem to be unfolding....what was broken does seem to be healing, albeit slowly, and we are given glimmers of that healing....the relationship between Jack and Glory, Glory's relinguishing of the fantasy of the perfect life and discovering the beauty within the life she has, the appearance of Jack's wife and child in Gilead...the possibility of Jack's son becoming a preacher.  

While the book doesn't end with "and they all lived happily ever after"...... somehow, for me anyhow, it does. 

 Now...off to write a sermon.

Blessings,

Wanda

[jeasleasland]

Wonda: Yes, I am mostly projecting my own sense of expectaions onto the characters perhaps.(that rescue desire runs deep). God leaves the Story open so that doubt and struggle can have a creative and aluring influence on our desire to continue the journey "Home".  That is what MR does and rightly so.  I am just coming out of a time when it seemed the desert had swollowed me up--again--but I am back on the trail---for sure the Strory still needs telling.-- Now get that sermon just right this time! --I just tore up my third draft and I feel like quiting---- I am the leper that needs healing! Time for a walk on the prairie!

    I am struggling to "explain" the Incarnation which of course is impossible, it is a mystery and an encounter------------------------------- but it is our only hope----------     Blessings on your work Wonda-------Roger

----- Original Message -----

From: Wanda Lester

To: Confessi...@googlegroups.com

[Gabe]

Willis,

I sent your comments below to MR. Not sure what to make of her
response to these and other Open Forum comments on HOME that I relayed
to her. Dare I now send that last one of Herb's as well as the earlier
ones I did send on :) ?

-Gabe

.........................................


Dear GF,


This conversation has been, beginning to end, very interesting in its
intractability. For the moment, suffice it to say I have no intention
in the world of 'attacking' Protestantism! There could hardly be a
more absolute misreading of my intentions! I feel continuously that I
am overhearing a conversation about a book I did not write, and would
certainly not have written. It really is remarkable. For your sakes
and mine, I should probably have been like those other writers who do
not involve themselves in these things. I was interested at first
because the conversation was among people of my tradition, so the
irony has taken on an interest of its own. I have not felt at any
point that my efforts to redirect your attention to elements in the
book that encourage another reading have had the slightest effect,
though I am in a privileged position, relative to these questions. As
a Protestant, I'm a little startled by the ex cathedra tone of these
comments, saying what I must have meant, or ought to have meant.
Thank God I do have readers of every stripe who have indeed read the
book I wrote.


MR

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Willis Elliott]

Gabe:

 

Ah, communication!  How improbable!  Even within UCC (MR & we both being)!

Yes, please do continue to send our comment to MR: I did not say that communication is impossible.

1

Yes, "Home" is inherently (not explicitly) anti-Protestant.  Coming home from college, the Boughton kids agree that Gilead is no place any educated person would want to live: bleak, stagnant, small-minded,moralistic.  I want MR to know that every week throughout the '50s & longer I was a Protestant pastor in "Gilead," i.e. in a small Protestant mid-West town less bleak, stagnant, small-minded, moralistic than MR's Gilead.  (Was MR herself a college kid who came to look on her home-town as bleak, stagnant, small-minded, moralistic?)  /  To make my point interrogatively: Reading "Home," would any non-Protestant be attracted to Gilead's religion (a religion more imprisoning than liberating)?  Some might be nostalgically wistful; many, I think, would be repulsed.

2

We commenters in this venue are, she says, "people of my tradition."  She hope to learn something by conversing with spiritual leaders in her tradition, with her "Home" as the field of conversation.  Has she given us any evidence that she's learned anything?  I think not.  The most glaring evidence is her accusation that we didn't read her book, are not among "the readers of every stripe who have indeed read the book I wrote."  The fact is that we've honored her book & its author by conversing intensely & extensively about it (though of course you've not sent her much of our conversation).

3

I sympathize with her feeling of not having been read: I feel she has not read me (not responded to any of my questions) except for picking up on my accusation that "Home" gives Protestantism a bad press.  /  I didn't say she intended to give Protestantism a bad press (so I'm not guilty of an "absolute misreading" of her "intentions"): I said she did so.  Since she's unaware that she did so, we have a point where she might have learned something from leaders in her "tradition."  (As you know, Gabe, I was a pastor in that tradition, was for a decade on the national staff of the UCC, and was president of a Mid-west state council of [6,000] churches.)

4

She speaks of "another reading" of her book than ours.  Authors present themselves in writing, readers present themselves in reviewing/commenting.  (In hermeneutics jargon, "reader-response criticism.")  I thank her for trying to call our attention to her reading of "Home," & believe we have tried to respond to her efforts; I can only think that she's been a poor reader of us when she says that at no point have her efforts "had the slightest effect."

5

Finally, a comment on her accusation that our comments have had an "ex cathedra tone...saying what I must have meant, or ought to have meant."  None of our comments were made to her: we were speculating among ourselves - & you, Gabe, in your wisdom & rightly, shared some of our speculations with her, in hope that she would take them as questions you hoped she might respond to for the enrichment of our conversation & for possible value to her.  I regret that we have found her (to use a word in her first sentence, below) "intractable."

 

Grace and peace--

Willis Elliott

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Gabe

To: Confessing Christ Open Forum

Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 10:58 AM

Subject: Re: Comments on some comments of the author of "HOME"

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

Version: 8.0.233 / Virus Database: 270.10.22/1946 - Release Date: 02/11/09 11:13:00

[herb.davis]

Gabe,  Don't sent Willis latest comments to MR.  I do not see this novel as anti protestant.  I do think most folks that go off to the university don't come back to small town American.  I happen to enjoy small towns.  I don't think this is the issues of the novel.  I still think it is idolatry or making the small town, Home, family, American values more than what they are.  For one that has never had a religious experience of the presence of God or anything else, as one who somehow confesses the Calvinist faith as best as I can as an 21 Century American this has been a wonderful novel.  Once I got over expecting the American answer, problem solving, and accepted the whiff os grace I felt MR was on the right road.  I really don't understand Willis strong negatives about this book.  Just thank MR for chatting with some folks who aren't really leaders just trying to love Jesus. 

 

By the way maybe we ought to talk about that article in Christian Century, "God Does Need Blood>"  Herb

 

[Wanda Lester]

You are so right Roger.  The incarnation is an encounter.  The mystery or maybe the surprise is that He comes in ways/times/places we least expect. 

Glad you are back on the trail.

Wanda

[Willis Elliott]

 Herb:

 

This morning, Gabe (via CC)  asked me, "Dare I send" to MR "that last one [comment] of Herb's...?"

 

A few hours later, I replied (via CC) "Yes, please do continue to send our comment[s] to MR...."  I cannot picture myself as judging so harshly anything you or anyone else wrote or might write as to try to block Gabe from sending it to MR or anybody else.

 

Now what, man, has your opinion of my opinion to do with whether Gabe should send my comments to MR?

 

Grace and peace--

Willis 

----- Original Message -----

From: herb.davis

To: Confessi...@googlegroups.com

[Gabe]

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Gabe]

Herb, Willis and others following this exchange and reading Home,

This is my last comment on the subject. In the e-mail below from MR
there is her e-mail address, so you can be in direct dialogue with her
if you choose to do so.

It does seem to me that we have honored her work by a long and close
reading, including appreciative comments of the kind in this fan mail,
and done so through theological lenses which this novel seemed to
invite.

--Gabe

............................................................................................................................


Dear GF--


To demonstrate to doubters that there are people out there who read my
book--


Best,


MR



Begin forwarded message:


From: "C. Hjalmarson" <hjalma...@yahoo.ca>
Date: February 10, 2009 6:14:13 PM CST
To: "Robinson, Marilynne" <marilynne...@uiowa.edu>
Subject: "Home"


Dear Ms. Robinson,
Thank you so much for "Home." I loved "Gilead," but really wanted to
get to know more about Jack. I guess you did too . . .
I have given gift copies of "Housekeeping" inumerable times, and now I
can add these two novels to the books I most want to share with family
and friends.
Your books are full of mercy, grace, compassion . . . soul-full.
Warm regards,
Cathleen Hjalmarson
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

....................................................................................................................................

On Feb 11, 8:43 pm, "Willis Elliott" <elliot...@charter.net> wrote:

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Gabe]

A vote for Herb's suggestion that we take up the Christian Century
cover story/article, "God Does not Require Blood" (Feb. 10, 2009).
Timely for the season and a leap into a currently vigorous discussion
in the churches and the academy about the meaning of the cross and the
atonement (See trialogue in the Lenten issue of the Reformed journal
Perspectives, othee theses that the cross is "child abuse," the
influence of Girard on the meaning of the cross and the like).
Participant Rick Floyd has written a book on this and others have
opined thoughtfully on it. Would make for a lively and helpful
discussion about the church's central symbol (which some would like to
replace with a mustard seed).

--Gabe

.....................................................................................................................

[John Cedarleaf]

Gabe,

I think it would be a fruitful discussion. I'll re-read the article in
preparation. On the first go round, perahps it was me or the hour or
something, I found it somewhat convoluted.This is a perfect Lenten
discussion. I'm surprised that Jack Spong hasn't written a new
"bombshell" to come out just in time for Easter.Sorry for being cynical
on a rainy morning in Fairport.

John

[jeasleasland]

Gabe and anyone interested: Yesterday I got confirmation that Wild Horse
Ministries will be in Ft. Pierre and Wessington Springs the last weekend in
June! Gabe has witnessed this "demonstration". He joined the many who
responded to "come down to the round pen" and pray! It was a memorable and
facinating way to present the Gospel of Jesus Christ! Blessings on every
one's season of the cross! A few drops of blood saves the whole cosmos! A
special thanks to Gabes "full orbed" Christian journey as teacher, and
friend. His authentic witness in academy, widder church, local church and
of course as centrist guide for Confessing Christ! The recent book
discussion was a good example of his maturity and love "shepherding" us
along as we all strain to catch the rays of the Kingdom as they descend from
the Holy Fire, through Jesus Christ, Man Alive! Blessings from the the vast
and silent prairie where the still small voice is heard-----------Roger

[Willis Elliott]

Thanks, Gabe.  Yes, time to move on.

 

All of us CC commenters on "Home" have expressed appreciation for "Home," though the author may not have seen all our appreciations of the book & of her willingness to respond to comments not made to her but forwarded to her by you.

 

Grace and peace--

Willis

----- Original Message -----

From: Gabe

To: Confessing Christ Open Forum

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

Version: 8.0.234 / Virus Database: 270.10.22/1946 - Release Date: 02/11/09 11:13:00

[George Demetrion]

Thanks Gabe,
 
if this does become a focused discussion topic I'd like to put Packer's classic essay, What Does the Cross Achieve.
http://thirdmill.org/newfiles/ji_packer/Packer.crossachieve.html
 
Alaistaire McGrath, a big fan of Packer's views this as one of his most important essays.
 
Best,
 
George


> Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 05:48:53 -0800

> Subject: Re: God's Blood

> From: gfa...@comcast.net
> To: Confessi...@googlegroups.com

[Willis Elliott]

Roger:

 

I agree: MR doesn't feminize God.

 

Grace and peace--

Willis

----- Original Message -----

From: jeasleasland

To: Confessi...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 8:35 AM

Subject: Re: Comments on some comments of the author of "HOME"

Willis: I don't think MR feminizes God, if my speculation was some where near on. Does your note imply that she does? I think that there are some missing links in the book. The sense of journey and wilderness is there but the "transformations" along the way don't seem to quite happen. It is like maybe no one makes it all the way to the cross and is surprised by the Incarnation, how it comes and when it comes.   Blessings       Roger

----- Original Message -----

From: Willis Elliott

To: Confessi...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 9:25 PM

Subject: Re: Comments on some comments of the author of "HOME"

Roger says (of Glory & Jack),

     She loves her brother so much and she longs for him to have what she has but she knows she can not rescue him. She simple turns him over to God and waits like the Father does in the prodical story. Jack is not ready to recieve. She waits in pain.

 

 

Yes, Roger,

SHE (Glory) is HE (the waiting father of L.15).

Glory would like to refurbish the liviingroom, but knows that Jack (next time he shows up) wants to see it unchanged....

 

Your reference to the Cross reminds me of Gabe's telling MR that our CC comments imply, where they do not state, Cross & Resurrection, & are not "worldly."

 

Grace and peace--

Willis

 

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

Version: 8.0.233 / Virus Database: 270.10.19/1942 - Release Date: 02/04/09 08:24:00

[herb.davis]

Sermon Note: Last Sunday after Epiphany/Transfiguration, Mk 9:2-9

The focus of the text is Jesus and the disciples. The focus on Jesus is
"Son of God." We often see Mark's understanding of Jesus as "Son of Man"
but the "Son of Man" should not hide Jesus as the "Son of God." The mystery
is Jesus as both "Son of God" and "Son of Man" is the Gospel paradox of
divine power and weakness, lowliness and majesty, servant and Lord. To
emphasis one is to solve the mystery. Mark Keeps the full Jesus before us.

This text can be seen in the light of the three affirmations of Jesus as
"Son of God in Mark. We hear the voice from heaven at his baptism, "You are
my Son, the Beloved." At the end of the Gospel we hear the confession of
the might Roman army officer, "Truly this man is the Son of God." Here on
the mount, in the midst of Elijah and Moses the disciple hear a voice from
the clould, "This is my Son, the beloved, listen to him." v.7 Mark wants us
to cling to the mystery "Son of God" - "Son of Man" in one person.

The focus on the disciple is also a focus on all who follow Jesus. To those
who have had an epiphany experience the result is often confusing. For
those of us who have only the text the same confusion can exist. The
confusion is expressed in longing to resolve the mystery, in grasping one
clear image. What a dumb response by the disciples. They want to hold on
to the monet, to build booths to celebration the gathering of Elijah, Moses
and Jesus. So like us to remember that special moment or to see Jesus in a
special ways as a "spiritual person" or "a man of sorrows" or "as the
radical rebel" or "the divine healer". Mark seems to be saying we cannot
hold the fullness of Jesus together until after the resurrection. Don't
make foolish statement disciple until we can say with Thomas to the risen
Jesus, "My Lord and My God."

Preachers are not called to give snappy moral lessons but to invite all to
the mount, to see the transfiguration and to hear, "This is my beloved Son,
listen to Him." My we listen to Jesus.

Any additions or correction? Any liturgical resources? Peace, Herb

-->

[jeasleasland]

Willis: I was thinking about your last post in relation to the small town I am serving. 1000 people with 8 churches, 1 RC. In many ways if you came here to look for yourself they look like they are frozen at about the 1960 level. But they are far from monolythic in the spirituality. In fact the presure for survival for their simple way of life has made them very tolerant and ecumenical, the opposite of Gilead.  I agree that no novel could catch the full spirituality of people who live in these tight communities. But it sure can be a spring board for dialogue for us theo-talk-types.  Blessings Roger

[Willis Elliott]

Gabe & others who want to discuss "God does not demand blood" (mistitled, on the 2.10.09 Christian Century cover, "...require..."):

1

The only note I'd written into the article-text was "Anagogy is not reification of the metaphor."  (To reify a metaphor is to treat the vehicle as as real as the tenor: in "God [the tenor] is light [the vehicle]," the reifier [literally, the one who makes real, morphing metaphor back into reality] sees "light" as as real as is "God" - so, "God" & "light" are interchangeable.)  ("Analogy," instead of reifying metaphors, "leads" the human spirit "up and again-&-onward" [the two meanings of "ana-"] to find meanings enriching commitment [e.g., Christians seeing Christ in the OT].)  A canonical reading of the NT use of OT blood-sacrifice excludes the notion of God as blood-thirsty.

2

If one reifies the metaphor-parable of the irrational-immoral-exuberant-forgiving father in L.15, Christian theology has the problem of reconciling God as both righteous & immoral.  If one reifies the ancient semantic domain of bloody sacrifice, Christian theology has the problem of reconciling God as both loving & blood-thirsty, "the ultimate sanction and source of redemptive violence,...violence as a means of restoring, protecting and preserving the order of things."  (Author Dan.M.Bell Jr means "the means.")

Logically, the error in metaphor-reification is reversing an irreversible statement.  Hermeneutically, the error is assuming the inseparability of tenor & vehicle.  My two instances here: (1) God is immoral, so why wouldn't the father in L.15 overlook his younger son's profligacy?  (2) God is blood-thirsty, so why wouldn't he let Jesus die?  Both statements, in addition to being blasphemous, are wooden-headed literalist.

3

Today is Darwin's (as well as Lincoln's) 200th birthday.  Loree & I just watched part of a PBS "Nature" program: nonhuman creatures spending almost full-time on the edge of survival, a frequently bloody business with violence, suffering, death.  But click from the "Nature" channel to the "History" channel: human life has been & is "a frequently bloody business with violence, suffering, death."  /  Monotheists (e.g., Paul: Ro.1.18-20) do not flinch from preaching God as Creator of & Lord over all aspects of reality; Darwin's 1859 last paragraph (first printing) attributes to "the Creator" the origin of life (by "breathing") within this "Struggle for life....the war of nature."  In the previous paragraph, D. anticipates the last paragraph's mention of God by affirming the good as evolution's goal: "as natural selection works solely by and for the good of each being, all corporeal and mental endowments will tend to progress toward perfection."  That's a meld of science, biblical religion, & 19th-c. belief in progress.  (And science classes should so indicate.)  /  Ditheists (two-deities dualists: e.g., mid-2nd-c. Marcion &, in effect, the author of this Christian Century article) achieve a wanted bloodless deity by attributing life's untowardnesses to some other source than the good God (e.g.,an anti-god, as Zoroaster's [& Manichaeanism's] Ahriman, Marcion's Demiurge).

4

The steady aim of the article's author -  as emerges in numerous sentences - is to achieve a dualistic-gnostic separation of his "God" from VIOLENCE.  "God neither inflicts violence nor desires suffering in order to set the divine-human relation right....the cost of communion, of reconciliation and redemption, is not blood and suffering....We renounce violence as a means of defending or securing or saving ourselves or those we love."  /   This negative commitment stiff-arm any & all historical or contemporary efforts to make any positive sense of violence other than the moral influence possible in suffering violence (as Jesus on the cross, or MJKing Jr making sure the television cameras are ready before his followers marching would be sure to encounter fire hoses & police dogs).  "Christ's work on the cross...is about showing us that God does not demand blood.  Christ's work on the cross is the divine refusal of blood sacrifice as well as suffering violence is or can be redemptive."  The cross is "a story about the depths and lengths to which God goes so that we might share in the triune life of God (John 3:16)."  Phil.2.5-8 shows us that "it is not a blood sacrifice that saves us but Jesus' obedience and fidelity."  "This love of God expressed in Jesus saves us."  "God hangs there not because that is what he demands, but because he desires life even for those who crucify him."

5

Notice, in the article, the repeated use of either/or, "not/but."  Good oratory, bad theology.  The author is a strange kind of Lutheran, perhaps neo-Lutheran.  He mocks a T-shirt with the logo, "His Pain, Our Gain" (on the truism "No pain, no gain").  He refuses the NT's maximum milking of all available metaphors to illumine the Cross: he rejects anything not passing through the sieve of his ideological anti-violence.  Irony: In hope that his rejection will (1) clean up the theology of the Cross & (2) reduce the use of the teaching of redemptive violence to promote violence, he winds up with (1) a public more confused about Jesus' death & (2) a paler deity.

6

 I'm not saying that all is metaphor, poetry.  Faith has its prose affirmation, else it would be only philosophy & art.  E.g., in biblical religion, God is the Consciousness creative of "all things," including our human consciousness.  That's the essence of our affirming that God is personal, creative, aware....

 

Grace and peace--

Willis

----- Original Message -----

From: Gabe

To: Confessing Christ Open Forum

Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 7:48 AM

Subject: Re: God's Blood

[Gabe]

Herb,

It looks like we have enough to launch a discussion of the Century
article on the cross. How about you kicking it off, as it was your
fine suggestion? We can't assume everyone has read the article, so
some sort of summary of the author's points might be important. Of
course, his refrain is not unlike that of other current critiques or
takes (Girardian, pacifist, "child abuse." etc.) but he has a little
different slant.

--Gabe

[jeasleasland]

Willis: The blood trail starts in the beginning of the Book but isn't it the Incarnation that seals the deal with humankind. No Incarnation, no just cause, no just cause no Cross,  no cross no blood,   no blood no story, no story no Spirit, no Spirit no faith, no faith no Christ IN us, no Christ IN us no need to carry out the Story in our flesh, no blood, nothing -------------------no religion!     I'll take that sacrificial blood.         Blessings from the  prairie, a few drops hit out here------------------Roger

[Willis Elliott]

Thanks, George.

 

First, I read Packer's endnotes & found them masterful.

1

During WW2, I got numerous letters with censor-blacked-out words/phrases/sentences.  Packer's article brought this WW2 experience to mind:

to go with the Christian Century article, what of Scripture would we have to black out?  For starters: Is.53 (representative [substitutionary!] suffering), the Lord's Supper texts, much in Paul (e.g., 2Cor.5.21, Gal.3.13).  Many texts not mentioning blood in sacrifice imply it; e.g., the scapegoat alone in the wilderness will be eaten.

2

Any ideological reduction of the CONtent of Protestant Scripture is Bible-abuse.  ALL biblical imagery/metaphors/models can be Spirit-instruments of enlightenment & guidance.  /   Luther (followed by almost all of Protestantism) reduced the EXtent of Scripture (making the Apocrypha an appendix to his German translation of the Bible).  While I can tolerate this reduction, I think all Protestant seminarians should be required to read (if not having a full course on) the Apocrypha.

3

When Packer says "Penal substitution is...the heart of the matter," he's rightly insisting on the court (justice/punishment) as one socio-model for understanding the atonement.  Vincent Taylor says that eliminating any model reduces our thanksgiving for the role of the Cross in our salvation.

4

God's "wrath" is the anthropopathic match with the seriousness of our "sin."  Theodic efforts to remove negative emotions from God (e.g., Ritschl & CHDodd)reduce, to the extent of their succsss, the reality of God as personal: we "image" God in the full range of the feelings he's given us through evolution (yes, Darwin).  /  There's something to be said for removing all feelings from God, an emotive deism which Greek theology calls "apatheia" (literally, "no-feeling") - but not much.  It's ironic that Greek theology puts greater emphasis on the incarnation than Roman theology: God incarnate as Jesus experienced in the flesh our feelings.

5

In Christian theology, mysteries are as important as meanings.  The mysteries of nature/grace, good/evil, divine/human, justice/love.  As to this last, Calvin rightly stressed that in the Cross, we are to see God's love & justice in inseparable action.

 

Grace and peace--

Willis

----- Original Message -----

From: George Demetrion

To: confessi...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 1:52 PM

Subject: RE: God's Blood

Thanks Gabe,
 
if this does become a focused discussion topic I'd like to put Packer's classic essay, What Does the Cross Achieve.
http://thirdmill.org/newfiles/ji_packer/Packer.crossachieve.html

 
Alaistaire McGrath, a big fan of Packer's views this as one of his most important essays.
 
Best,
 
George

/09 11:13:00

[jeasleasland]

Willis: Your last point is so essential, justice and love together discribe sacrifice which takes us to the obvious necessity, the shedding of blood.  New Covenant eucharist is transitory between material and spirit= mystery unraveled by anamesis/faith. So from the cross the blood continues to flow awakening the human heart to Gods cause; love and justice. The eternal movement of salvation. Blessings tireless friend, sleep well tonight, you will be busy witnessing tomorrow------------Roger 

----- Original Message -----

From: Willis Elliott

To: Confessi...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Friday, February 13, 2009 5:06 PM

Subject: Re: God's Blood

[jeasleasland]

Willis: I have been using a quote from Church of England's Terry Wait who I met a Augustana College as a benediction: "Pray and work the weak may become strong, that the strong may become just and that the just may become compassionate."  I have also used it several times in the So. Dak. legislative prayer settings.   The deep peace of the running wave and the flowing grass of the prairie  to you Willis and Loree---------Roger

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Willis Elliott

To: Confessi...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Friday, February 13, 2009 5:06 PM

Subject: Re: God's Blood

[George Demetrion]

Thank you Willis,
 
Your note encouraged me to carefully re-read Packer's essay, "What did the Cross Achieve, " which was my third or fourth reading since this piece came to my attention a few months ago.
 
From the quick read of the synopsis of the Christian Century article, the argument seems like a caricature, which is a similar conclusion that one can draw from Peter Schmiechen's article "Incarnation and Atonement, with special reference to Schleiermacher and Mercerburg," published in The New Merecrburg Review (Fall 2007).  Though written in 1973 and widely recognized as one of the finest statements in evangelical thelogy, it is a profound neglect that Schmiechen totally ignored Packer's essay in his own piece.  If he had taken on the article he would have done justice to showing the theology of penal substitution in one of its strongest lights.  Instead he settled for something less.  I wonder if that's the case too for the CC article?
 
I don't have the luxury of time to lay out Packer's argument in depth in his "What Did the Cross Achieve," but it is one worthy of the most serious review in its depth, comprehensiveness and overall rhetorical power.
 
Of particular note is his exstensive methodological introduction where he lays out his thesis of theology in general as a model in which its primary objective (that is, in service to the Church, which is where Packer places theology) is kerygmatic rather than propositional.  Thus, penal substitution as with all doctrine is not only analogical, but enshrounded and embedded witthin mystery in which revelation is given through the lens of a glass darkly.
 
It is from this context that he then develops his theology of penal substitution which he maintains is sufficiently broad to incorporate other dimensions of the Atonement in which to sacrifice is to give up something fundamental about the most basic assumptions of the New Testamernt.
 
He organizes his discussion of substitition into 5 categories
 

1. Substitution and retribution drawing heavily on Romans 1:18-30.  In another essay related to this theme he draws heavily on Isiah 52-53. Underlying this is his exegetical argument that one cannot avoid the significance of penal substitution and take the New Testemant on his own terms.
2. Substitution and solidarity where he draws on Romans 5-6, Col. 2:6-3:4, 1 Cor 15:45ff, 2 Cor 5r:17, Phil 2:5-11 and more
3. Substitution and mystery  "To the question, what does the cross mean to God's plan for man's good, a biblical answer is ready to hand, but when we ask how these things can be we find ourselves facing a mystery at every point.
4. Substitution and salvation  Gal 2:20, Rom 5:6-11, 17,
5. Substitution and divine love John 3:16, John 15:13-14.  There are some excellent passages in this section such as the following:

 
"Furthermore, if the true measure of love is how low it stoops to help, and how much in its humility it is ready to do and bear, then it may fairly be claimed that the penal substitutionary model embodies a richer witness to divine love than any other model of atonement, for it sees the Son at his Father's will going lower than any other view ventures to suggest. That death on the cross was a criminal's death, physically as painful as, if not more painful than, any mode of judicial execution that the world has seen; and that Jesus endured it in full consciousness of being innocent before God and man, and yet of being despised and rejected, whether in malicious conceit or in sheer fecklessness, by persons he had loved and tried to save - this is ground common to all views, and tells us already that the love of Jesus, which took him to the cross, brought him appallingly low. But the penal substitution model adds to all this a further dimension of truly unimaginable distress, compared with which everything mentioned so far pales into insignificance. "
 
Packer's underlying argument is that the NT teaches that Christ plummeted to the depths of human despair as God himself suffering by becoming both priest and sacrifical lamb without whicdh God's sense of justice could not be requited.  Unless this undelies the theology of the Cross something of the most fundamental proportions is missing.  Contrary to Schmiechen the theological model of penal substitution provides for the most comprehensive interpretation of the Atonement that includes the theme of divine retribution as one of its core doctrines  which in turn leads to God's unimagneable love.  More, if it is ignored, something of fundamental proportions is sacrificed.
 
I believe that Packer's essay is worthy of the most serious consideration in any discussion on the Atonement.  The important point here is the comprehnsiveness of the theology of the Atonement (point 1-5) that Packer lays out from the grounding point of classical Protestant interpretation.
 
George Demetrion
 
 

---

From: elli...@charter.net
To: Confessi...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: God's Blood

[Gabe]

George,

You are right that this Packer essay deserves careful attention in
this discussion. (I've about drained my black ink printing out the 25
pages, in 10 pont font at that). Will try to respond.

--Gabe

[Gabe]

George,

I sent this once but it did not appear for some reason.

You are right that this important essay deserves careful attention in
the discussion of the Christian Century article. (I'm about out of
black ink after printing it out :) Will respond after digesting it in
full.

--Gabe

On Feb 15, 5:47 pm, George Demetrion <gdemetr...@msn.com> wrote:

> Thank you Willis,
>
> Your note encouraged me to carefully re-read Packer's essay, "What did the Cross Achieve, " which was my third or fourth reading since this piece came to my attention a few months ago.
>
> From the quick read of the synopsis of the Christian Century article, the argument seems like a caricature, which is a similar conclusion that one can draw from Peter Schmiechen's article "Incarnation and Atonement, with special reference to Schleiermacher and Mercerburg," published in The New Merecrburg Review (Fall 2007).  Though written in 1973 and widely recognized as one of the finest statements in evangelical thelogy, it is a profound neglect that Schmiechen totally ignored Packer's essay in his own piece.  If he had taken on the article he would have done justice to showing the theology of penal substitution in one of its strongest lights.  Instead he settled for something less.  I wonder if that's the case too for the CC article?
>
> I don't have the luxury of time to lay out Packer's argument in depth in his "What Did the Cross Achieve," but it is one worthy of the most serious review in its depth, comprehensiveness and overall rhetorical power.
>
> Of particular note is his exstensive methodological introduction where he lays out his thesis of theology in general as a model in which its primary objective (that is, in service to the Church, which is where Packer places theology) is kerygmatic rather than propositional.  Thus, penal substitution as with all doctrine is not only analogical, but enshrounded and embedded witthin mystery in which revelation is given through the lens of a glass darkly.
>
> It is from this context that he then develops his theology of penal substitution which he maintains is sufficiently broad to incorporate other dimensions of the Atonement in which to sacrifice is to give up something fundamental about the most basic assumptions of the New Testamernt.
>
> He organizes his discussion of substitition into 5 categories
>
> Substitution and retribution drawing heavily on Romans 1:18-30.  In another essay related to this theme he draws heavily on Isiah 52-53. Underlying this is his exegetical argument that one cannot avoid the significance of penal substitution and take the New Testemant on his own terms.
> Substitution and solidarity where he draws on Romans 5-6, Col. 2:6-3:4, 1 Cor 15:45ff, 2 Cor 5r:17, Phil 2:5-11 and more
> Substitution and mystery  "To the question, what does the cross mean to God's plan for man's good, a biblical answer is ready to hand, but when we ask how these things can be we find ourselves facing a mystery at every point.
> Substitution and salvation  Gal 2:20, Rom 5:6-11, 17,
> Substitution and divine love John 3:16, John 15:13-14.  There are some excellent passages in this section such as the following:
>
> "Furthermore, if the true measure of love is how low it stoops to help, and how much in its humility it is ready to do and bear, then it may fairly be claimed that the penal substitutionary model embodies a richer witness to divine love than any other model of atonement, for it sees the Son at his Father's will going lower than any other view ventures to suggest. That death on the cross was a criminal's death, physically as painful as, if not more painful than, any mode of judicial execution that the world has seen; and that Jesus endured it in full consciousness of being innocent before God and man, and yet of being despised and rejected, whether in malicious conceit or in sheer fecklessness, by persons he had loved and tried to save - this is ground common to all views, and tells us already that the love of Jesus, which took him to the cross, brought him appallingly low. But the penal substitution model adds to all this a further dimension of truly unimaginable distress, compared with which everything mentioned so far pales into insignificance. "
>
> Packer's underlying argument is that the NT teaches that Christ plummeted to the depths of human despair as God himself suffering by becoming both priest and sacrifical lamb without whicdh God's sense of justice could not be requited.  Unless this undelies the theology of the Cross something of the most fundamental proportions is missing.  Contrary to Schmiechen the theological model of penal substitution provides for the most comprehensive interpretation of the Atonement that includes the theme of divine retribution as one of its core doctrines  which in turn leads to God's unimagneable love.  More, if it is ignored, something of fundamental proportions is sacrificed.
>
> I believe that Packer's essay is worthy of the most serious consideration in any discussion on the Atonement.  The important point here is the comprehnsiveness of the theology of the Atonement (point 1-5) that Packer lays out from the grounding point of classical Protestant interpretation.
>
> George Demetrion
>

> From: elliot...@charter.netTo: Confessing-Chr...@googlegroups.comSubject: Re: God's BloodDate: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 17:06:25 -0600
>
> Thanks, George.
>
> First, I read Packer's endnotes & found them masterful.
> 1
> During WW2, I got numerous letters with censor-blacked-out words/phrases/sentences.  Packer's article brought this WW2 experience to mind:
> to go with the Christian Century article, what of Scripture would we have to black out?  For starters: Is.53 (representative [substitutionary!] suffering), the Lord's Supper texts, much in Paul (e.g., 2Cor.5.21, Gal.3.13).  Many texts not mentioning blood in sacrifice imply it; e.g., the scapegoat alone in the wilderness will be eaten.
> 2
> Any ideological reduction of the CONtent of Protestant Scripture is Bible-abuse.  ALL biblical imagery/metaphors/models can be Spirit-instruments of enlightenment & guidance.  /   Luther (followed by almost all of Protestantism) reduced the EXtent of Scripture (making the Apocrypha an appendix to his German translation of the Bible).  While I can tolerate this reduction, I think all Protestant seminarians should be required to read (if not having a full course on) the Apocrypha.
> 3
> When Packer says "Penal substitution is...the heart of the matter," he's rightly insisting on the court (justice/punishment) as one socio-model for understanding the atonement.  Vincent Taylor says that eliminating any model reduces our thanksgiving for the role of the Cross in our salvation.
> 4
> God's "wrath" is the anthropopathic match with the seriousness of our "sin."  Theodic efforts to remove negative emotions from God (e.g., Ritschl & CHDodd)reduce, to the extent of their succsss, the reality of God as personal: we "image" God in the full range of the feelings he's given us through evolution (yes, Darwin).  /  There's something to be said for removing all feelings from God, an emotive deism which Greek theology calls "apatheia" (literally, "no-feeling") - but not much.  It's ironic that Greek theology puts greater emphasis on the incarnation than Roman theology: God incarnate as Jesus experienced in the flesh our feelings.
> 5
> In Christian theology, mysteries are as important as meanings.  The mysteries of nature/grace, good/evil, divine/human, justice/love.  As to this last, Calvin rightly stressed that in the Cross, we are to see God's love & justice in inseparable action.
>
> Grace and peace--
> Willis
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: George Demetrion
> To: confessi...@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 1:52 PM
> Subject: RE: God's Blood

> Thanks Gabe, if this does become a focused discussion topic I'd like to put Packer's classic essay, What Does the Cross Achieve.http://thirdmill.org/newfiles/ji_packer/Packer.crossachieve.htmlAlaistaire McGrath, a big fan of Packer's views this as one of his most important essays. Best, George/09 11:13:00

[George Demetrion]

Hi Gabe,
 
The first message came through. Sometimes that happens where others receive it  but you don't.  When that happens to me I check thr archives.
 
To all,
 
Packer's essay, What Did the Cross Achieve, plus some of his related essays can be accessed in the edited text InMhy Place Condemned He Stood http://www.amazon.com/Place-Condemned-Stood-Celebrating-Atonement/dp/1433502003
  Check out the review, too.
 
George

> Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2009 18:56:50 -0800

> Subject: Re: God's Blood

> From: gfa...@comcast.net
> To: Confessi...@googlegroups.com

[Willis Elliott]

George (& John):

1

Herb's summary of the Christian Century article is accurate.  In my view, the article is (yes, though unintentionally) a "caricature" of the canonical doctrine of the atonement.  The author had a theodic concern Is.53 & Jesus (& the NT), did not have, viz. to protect God from being seen as allowing "substitution" (well spelled out by Packer's five categories, which are canonical-comprehensive).  The irony of it!  The author takes what he considers a superior moral (& therefore also theological) position -  superior to Scripture -  & in so doing produces (unwittingly) a "caricature" of Scripture.  /  He's concerned about sacrifice, & his take on it involves a sacrifice (in your words): "something of the most fundamental proportions is sacrificed."

2

Rightly, you say that without penal substitution (Jesus taking our penalty for sin), "God's sense of justice could not be requited."  That is implicit in Is.53 - from the viewpoint of the atonement, the OT's most important chapter.  We are in court, which operates on the judge's "sense of justice," which must be "requited" (re-paid, satisfied) vis-a-vis the court's foundation, which is law.  The COURT is the socio-model for God's "righteousness," & the model is efficacious throughout & beyond Scripture (beyond: the creeds say that "he [Jesus] shall come again to judge....").  /  Depending on the attitude of the the accused, the judge may either fly into a cool rage (God's "wrath") or show mercy, with a lighter or no penalty (God's "grace").

3

We still have courts, so it's no great leap for us to enter into biblical court-thinking.  But we no longer have ALTARS of blood sacrifice administered by priests as, or in cooperation with, judges: the socio-model of the HIGH PLACE / TABERNACLE / TEMPLE no longer exists, & it takes a great leap of imagination for us to enter into this dimension of Scripture (partly across the bridge of whatever elements in our society  provide the altar function). 

....The COURT aims to defend/maintain/restore order: the SOCIAL dimension.

....The ALTAR aims to restore the sinner: the INDIVIDUAL dimension.

4

Here's a story combining court an altar.  A food-thief, picked up for vagrancy, stood penniless before a judge.  The guilty man (a "Negro") had left Georgia & come to NY looking for work.  The judge couldn't fine him but could imprison him.  Instead, he gave him, of his own money, $50 (about five week's avg. pay, at the time) & told him to return home.  The judge paid the penalty the man could not.  Justice & mercy kissed each other (as righteousness & peace, Ps.85.10).  No problem remembering the incident: the judge was my father.

5

Scripture exploits to the full both court & altar.

In Christology, Jesus is both judge & judged, both priest & bloody sacrifice.

Packer is correct that this exploitation is kerygmatic (preaching), not (as, e.g., Carl Henry) propositional (philosophical theology).

6

It's pathetic & tragic that the article's author is trying to improve God's moral reputation by depriving the Bible of its full exploitation of court-&-altar meanings.  The author makes God come off as a decent fellow, non-violent & certainly non-bloody.  (No mention, of course, that God created the violent, bloody food-chain.)  This re-imagined God is certainly nobody to be feared: "the Man upstairs, if there is one, will be kind to me" is the response I've had a number of times when I've asked somebody to take the Bible's God seriously.  Two evenings ago, I very old man who has never had anything to do with "religion" since childhood responded to my witness nonchalantly, saying "I'll know soon."  The societal effect of our author's reduced deity is to marginalize-trivialize the gospel/Bible/Christianity.

7

Both Testaments are deeply concerned with God's reputation (Hebrew, chavod; Greek, doxa), usually translated "glory."  1Cor.10.31 enjoins us, in whatever we do, to "do all for the glory of God" (or, in Hebrew - as the only assertion in the Lord's Prayer [other than the added doxology] - the sanctification/hallowing of God's Name).  But this God - the God of Scripture & (as Ro.1.20) nature - is to be feared & loved: a deity who is only to be loved is optional, as are all lovers.  I was converted 3.9.35 when I became convinced that in this life & the life to come, I had to do with the biblical God (not the God of Love Only whom I'd heard preached in the "modernist" church I'd been attending).  /  Irony: The effort to clean up God's reputation (i.e., to improve his moral reputation) results in God's disappearance, as today in much of Europe (except, of course, in the growing Muslim population).

8

John C. well asks, vis-a-vis the atonement in light of the article, what needs to change?  The article's author says the Bible: pull out the bloody, red thread running throughout it.  His blood-revulsion reminds me, in my pastoral experience, of a girl who would like to have become a nurse but couldn't stand the sight of blood.  Bell is at the maximum distance from Jonathan Edwards.

 

Grace and peace--

Willis

---

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.10.23/1953 - Release Date: 02/14/09 18:01:00

[herb.davis]

Dear Discussers,  George or Willis suggested that this article is a caricature of the atonement.  I think that is an interesting note since this article distorts and exaggerated certain characteristics of the doctrine of the atonement.  Take the opening sentence, "Christians have never embraced blood sacrifice.  We have not offered chicken or slain goats, let alone sacrificed our firstborn children to God."  Of course not, but we might ask "Why Not?"  It is not we who offer sacrifice, it is God, in the second person of the Trinity, who is the sacrifice.  It is not God who requires blood, it is God who give blood."  God is not like an earthly king who demands our life for our country, but the King who give his life for our salvation.  Yet this never appears in the article.  The love of God appears and basically an Incarnation view of atonement.

 

Bells instance that the cross demands that we see life as one which requires us to make a blood offering is another caricature. There is no evidence in the NT that Christians are to make blood sacrifices.  Christians are not to become sacrifices but to be "living sacrifices" .  We "offer sacrifice of thanksgiving" (H.C. question 43)which is the opposite of blood sacrifice. 

 

The use of scripture here is slim and more proof text than exegesis.  Bell has a theory and he uses scripture to support it.  He lays his theory on the texts.  We all do it, but this is no careful analysis of the Biblical story, its an attempt to make Bell's god likeable to our modern culture which is so full of violence. 

 

Some more from Barth on the Heidelberg Catechism question 35-44 if needed.  Peace, Herb.

 

 

[Ryan Dowell Baum]

Dear friends,

I am enjoying immensely the opportunity to listen in on your dialogue on the atonement.  I would very much like to hear your responses to Essays 1-5 (all concerning the atonement) at http://www.selftest.net/simplegospel/essays.htm, written by my friend Webb Mealy.  In these essays, Webb seems to present a convincing argument that indeed, God does not demand blood, but without whitewashing God's wrath and judgment.  Perhaps I am missing something, though, and would love to know what you think.

Grace and peace,
Ryan

--
Ryan Dowell Baum
135 E. University St.
Wooster, OH 44691
(510) 681-7498

Beloved, let us love one another, because love is from God; everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, for God is love. (1 John 4:7-8)

Whoever claims to live in Him must walk as He walked. (1 John 2:6)

[Willis Elliott]

You say it well, Herb:

the article is

 an attempt to make Bell's god likeable to our modern culture which is so full of violence. 

 

 

Grace and peace--

Willis 

[George Demetrion]

The Epistle to the Hebrews
 
George
 

---

From: herb....@mindspring.com
To: Confessi...@googlegroups.com

Subject: RE: God's Blood

Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 21:18:29 -0500

[George Demetrion]

Ryan and all,
 
Perhaps we might envision "blood" as a primary metaphor of substantial significance which has both literal and figurative dimsnisons--such as in the Churchilliam blood sweat, toil and tears.  In this respect the proclaimer and embodiment of the New Covenant was "crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death so that by the grace of God he may taste death for everyone" (Heb 2:9) as the means of propitiating God's wrath on fallen humanity without which as the cleansing by fire through which purification (in the sense of holiness with God) comes (Heb 12:18-28).  Viewed thusly, the High Priest "entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. For if the sprinkling of defiled persons with the blood of goats and bulls with the ashes of a heifer sanctifies for the purification of flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God" (Heb 9:12-14).
 
Thus, one might say that the blood of Christ (shed for the remssion of sins) is a metaphor of the most profound sort that has an enduring signifying dimension that cannot be fully grasped because it is embodied in the mystery of God the almighty.  In this respect the following contains an enormous amount of evocative power: "Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood [sweat, toil, and tears] there is no forgiveness of sins.  Thus [therefore,] it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified by these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these." (Heb 9:22-23, but see also 24-28).
 
While it may be said that the blood is a metaphor that goes to the very core of Christ revealed as God in flesh, the propitiation, the substitutinary sacrifice, is the underlying phenomenon, which, in its raw radicality is a scandal of major proportions to the modern (postmodern) western world view.
 
George Demetrion
 

---

Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 21:37:22 -0500

Subject: Re: God's Blood

From: ryan.dow...@gmail.com
To: Confessi...@googlegroups.com

[Wanda Lester]

Herb, 

Perhaps this is where the difficulty lies in wrapping our heads around the atonement .... beginning with the kenosis of the incarnation God did the unthinkable...the almost unimaginable... what for the world was and still is scandalous - utter foolishness:

 

It is not we who offer sacrifice, it is God, in the second person of the Trinity, who is the sacrifice.  It is not God who requires blood, it is God who give blood."   

 

You are so right...God does not require ...God offers.  This is what drops us to our knees in praise and thanksgiving....freeing us to open our clenched fists and offer ourselves - as living sacrifices - to God and neighbor....not because we must but because we can.

 

Wanda 

[jeasleasland]

Willis and At-One-Ment thinkers: Yesterday the United Methodist pastor told me that they are in process of a new Hymnal and are struggling to take references to BLOOD, OUT. A recent candidate for UCC ordination said after I questioned her theology paper on the atonement, "The whole idea of this bloody cross, just does not do anything for womens issues".

    The whole of orthodoxy hangs on the Incarnation, but it can only be received as real through faith. If you break down one pillar of orthodox faith  the rest easily tumble. The just shall live by faith. Only so much rationalizing about the atonement is helpful. We can either move into the uncreated energy of grace raidiating from the cross and serve or just hang back and talk about it. The cross displays Gods nature as justice and mercy. Only in entering the struggle for justice with mercy does Christ come alive and reveal Himself afresh. Blessings sisters and brothers all One in the struggle of that old rugged, bloody, cross!   Charge on the time is short----------on the prairie, one of your fellow fools---  Roger 

[Ryan Dowell Baum]

Hi George et al,

In his essays, Webb says:

In Christ, we see God the pierced one, the God whose mercy and love drove him to endure being torn by the very ones he loved. That is the good news. The cross itself is the "fountain of cleansing" that God has appointed. It is the place of facing ourselves and the enemies that we have become towards our own creator. It is the place at which God has chosen to meet us, and to release for us God's great power for repentance and reconciliation—not just reconciliation to God, but also to one another (Eph. 2:11-22). John says this:

God is love. This is how God showed God's love among us: God sent God's only Son into the world that we might live through him. This is love: not that we loved God, but that God loved us and sent God's Son to be the reconciling sacrifice for our sins. (1 John 4:8-10)

The thing that is worth noticing about this passage and all similar passages in the New Testament, is that Jesus is offered by God to us as a reconciling sacrifice ("propitiation"), and does not offer himself to God as a reconciling sacrifice. Various writers say that Jesus offered himself to God (e.g. Hebrews), but they say it in such a way that it is clearly not as someone who offers to undergo vicarious punishment or rejection from the hands of God. Hebrews says he underwent vicarious purification and refinement through suffering, to flesh out and to complete his identification with our need, and his flawlessly loving and forgiving nature as High Priest (Heb. 5:8-10). There is not a word in Hebrews about Jesus vicariously experiencing anger or condemning punishment (except from us—read Heb. 12:2-3). The New Testament writers agree that in his dying Jesus offered up the very life of his body, all of himself as a person, in love to God (as we are also commanded to do, Rom. 12:1). And God was infinitely pleased with that offering (see Eph. 5:2: "Christ loved us, and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God").

He is not denying Christ's substitutionary death, or even that Christ acted as a propitiation, but says that the party that needed propitiation was not God, but humanity.  God loves us so much that he offers himself in his own beloved Son to us as a reconciling sacrifice (propitiation).  What Webb rejects is not the Cross or its necessity, but the claim that God damned his own Son, that he had to damn his own Son, in order to forgive us.

In this sense, then, Herb and Wanda are right: the point is not that God demanded blood (he didn't), but that he gave it--to us!

Grace and peace,
Ryan

[jeasleasland]

Willis: I was just thinking about the transfiguration and the display of uncreated energies. Blood is the absolute sign of biological energy. If it is drained death is assured. In the Incarnate One's shedding of blood death should be assured but since he is also God the uncreated energies take over and glorify his human body(resurrection).  Baptism with water and Spirit joins us to the Christ, just as the divine energies interpenetrate him, his glorified flesh interpenetrates us. Eastern Orthodox teach this from 11 Peter 1, "partakers of the Divine Nature". I bet it is a lost teaching to protestants but not to me.  The incarnation unto the cross fulfills the promise to God's people that they will be deified so as to be enabled  inhabit heaven! Scripture interprets scripture every time! This is way more than primitive understanding, it is irreplaceable to Christian faith. Moderns want to take the Super out of God's Nature and replace it with their own same old stuff, themselves,  same old fruit, same old forbidden tree-------------show me where I error--------               Blessings friend  ------------   Roger

----- Original Message -----

From: Willis Elliott

To: Confessi...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2009 10:17 PM

Subject: Re: God's Blood - the doctrine of the ATONEMENT in light of Daniel.L.Bell Jr's "God does not demand blood" (Christian Century 2.10.09)

[Willis Elliott]

That'll be the day, Roger.

A Methodist hymnal taking the blood out of Charles Wesley's hymns.

 

Grace and peace--

Willis

----- Original Message -----

From: jeasleasland

To: Confessi...@googlegroups.com

Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.10.25/1957 - Release Date: 02/17/09 07:07:00

[Willis Elliott]

Right on, Ryan.

 

Grace and peace--

Willis Elliott

----- Original Message -----

From: Ryan Dowell Baum

To: Confessi...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 3:40 PM

Subject: Re: God's Blood

[herb.davis]

Dear George,  Bell did not quote Hebrews.  Herb

 

[Willis Elliott]

Roger:

 

You sometimes err, but NOT THIS TIME!

 

Grace and peace--

Willis

----- Original Message -----

From: jeasleasland

To: Confessi...@googlegroups.com

[Richard Floyd]

Atonement talkers,

Gabe has prodded me to get into this conversation, so here goes.  Asking me about the atonement is a bit like asking Nero Wolfe about orchids; you may not want to know that much about it.

I think Herb and Willis' analyses of the Bell article are right.  To give Bell credit, he seems to be addressing the hatred many liberal mainline Christians have for the cross, and at least he wants to affirm it in some way.  Roger's anecdote about the UCC ordination candidate who spurned the cross is not imaginary.  Such stories abound.  I witnessed some of this animus last summer at the Craigville colloquy in the reaction of  a few to my paper:  The Cross and Violence:  Is the Word of the Cross Good News or is it Bad News? which I attach because it deals with many of the issues in this conversation: 

 

[jeasleasland]

Rick and saints: I just had a wonderful talk on subject  this with the local RC Priest over lunch.  I think we were both amazed at the agreement we so very quickly reached. He confessed that even though they have a more "visual" and liturgical sacrificial "method/worship" lots of his people don't get it. They don't even understand baptism when they are life long Catholics he said!  He agreed that both monarchical monotheism(replacing solid Trinitarian theology) and moralism(Herbs pet peave) block people from the "experience" of GRACE as the Divine Free Gift! We agreed that somehow "sanctification" is often lost in a lot of unholy nonsense and or political posturing all to the sadness of good pastors like him. Thanks for your claritiy, force and appealing way to put a handle on the old rugged, wonderful Cross ! -------------- The prairie is starting to sing of spring and the fish are biting on Big Muddy---time to get the fishin pole out---------------Roger

----- Original Message -----

From: Richard Floyd

To: Confessi...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2009 10:36 AM

Subject: Re: God's Blood - the doctrine of the ATONEMENT in light of Daniel.L.Bell Jr's "God does not demand blood" (Christian Century 2.10.09)

Atonement talkers,

Gabe has prodded me to get into this conversation, so here goes.  Asking me about the atonement is a bit like asking Nero Wolfe about orchids; you may not want to know that much about it.

I think Herb and Willis' analyses of the Bell article are right.  To give Bell credit, he seems to be addressing the hatred many liberal mainline Christians have for the cross, and at least he wants to affirm it in some way.  Roger's anecdote about the UCC ordination candidate who spurned the cross is not imaginary.  Such stories abound.  I witnessed some of this animus last summer at the Craigville colloquy in the reaction of  a few to my paper:  The Cross and Violence:  Is the Word of the Cross Good News or is it Bad News? which I attach because it deals with many of the issues in this conversation: 

 

---

I also want to affirm Herb and Wanda's insight that the atonement is not so much what God requires of us, but what God does for us,  doing for us what we cannot do for ourselves.

Bell's essay lacks a proper Trinitarian frame to understand the atonement in a manner that does justice to the riches of scripture on the subject.  

As I have written many times, if your starting place is a deity who then sacrifices the human Jesus, it is morally reprehensible.  But this unitarian god is not the  Christian God, and such characterizations are straw men.

In George Lindbeck's now iconic book The Nature of Doctrine, he describes one of his ideal types as liberal/expressivist, Paul Tillich being the model.  This approach says what we are describing here could be described any number of other ways.  I think this theological approach predominates in the UCC and it is a disaster because it can't grasp the particularity of the Christian story.  I think some of the need to apologize for the cross comes from the fact that it is still a scandal, because it doesn't fit the other modern and postmodern meta-narratives that people live by.

So people don't like the cross because it's icky.  They condemn it because it fosters violence, or masochism, or sadism, or other things that right-thinking people don't like.  Apart from asking whether any of these indictments are true (is it true, for example, as Bell writes, that “the logic of blood sacrifice often shapes the way Christians act.”?) can you have a cross-less Christianity?  Bell, at least, wants to say no.

So we have a cross at the center of our faith, the actuality of atonement, as Colin Gunton's great book is called.  What do we do with this fact?

Foremost is to abandon liberal/expressivist attempts to say what the cross means some other way( ie. as the apotheosis of human sacrifice) and to attend closely to scripture, to the rich, thick intertextuality of the record.  Richard Baukham's God Crucified argues that there was never a Christology that didn't understand Jesus' death as a sacrifice, that our Gospels preserve a pre-Markan kerygma that understood it that way from the outset.  The temple associations with sacrifice are obvious, but even before Jesus time, sacrifice had taken on a metaphorical character as in “The sacrifice acceptable to God is a broken spirit.”

Willis rightly points to the importance of God's reputation in both testaments.  P.T. Forsyth speaks of God the Holy Father, and describes God's holiness as the antithesis of sin.  There is no way sinful humanity can reconcile itself to the holy God.  But God can, and does, in an act of divine love from God's side that is a sacrifice, a sacrifice of God as much as to God.

One can say that Jesus' blood sacrifice is the end of blood sacrifice.  Here is a new temple and a new priesthood; here the saving victim is both priest and sacrifice.  Freely offering his life to the Father in the Spirit, the man Jesus reconciles (which is what the Greek word translated as atonement also means) sinful, dying humanity with the Holy Father in a trinitarian act of the Godhead.  Sin and death are defeated and the veil of the temple is torn in two.  The old has passed away, the new has come.  This once and for all character of the cross means blood sacrifice is no longer required.  So the cross answers our question:  God does not demand blood.

Rick Floyd

Pittsfield, MA

Richard Floyd

rfl...@berkshire.rr.com

to go with the Christian Century article, what of Scripture would we have to black out?  For starters: Is.53 (representative [substitutionary!] suffering), the Lord's Supper texts,much in Paul (e.g., 2Cor.5.21, Gal.3.13).  Many texts not mentioning blood in sacrifice imply it; e.g., the scapegoat alone in the wilderness will be eaten.

I also want to affirm Herb and Wanda's insight that the atonement is 
not so much what God requires of us, but what God does for us,  doing 
for us what we cannot do for ourselves.

Bell's essay lacks a proper Trinitarian frame to understand the 
atonement in a manner that does justice to the riches of scripture on 
the subject.

As I have written many times, if your starting place is a deity who 
then sacrifices the human Jesus, it is morally reprehensible.  But 
this unitarian god is not the  Christian God, and such 
characterizations are straw men.

In George Lindbeck's now iconic book The Nature of Doctrine, he 
describes one of his ideal types as liberal/expressivist, Paul Tillich 
being the model.  This approach says what we are describing here could 
be described any number of other ways.  I think this theological 
approach predominates in the UCC and it is a disaster because it can't 
grasp the particularity of the Christian story.  I think some of the 
need to apologize for the cross comes from the fact that it is still a 
scandal, because it doesn't fit the other modern and postmodern meta-
narratives that people live by.

So people don't like the cross because it's icky.  They condemn it 
because it fosters violence, or masochism, or sadism, or other things 
that right-thinking people don't like.  Apart from asking whether any 
of these indictments are true (is it true, for example, as Bell 
writes, that “the logic of blood sacrifice often shapes the way 
Christians act.”?) can you have a cross-less Christianity?  Bell, at 
least, wants to say no.

So we have a cross at the center of our faith, the actuality of 
atonement, as Colin Gunton's great book is called.  What do we do with 
this fact?

Foremost is to abandon liberal/expressivist attempts to say what the 
cross means some other way( ie. as the apotheosis of human sacrifice) 
and to attend closely to scripture, to the rich, thick intertextuality 
of the record.  Richard Baukham's God Crucified argues that there was 
never a Christology that didn't understand Jesus' death as a 
sacrifice, that our Gospels preserve a pre-Markan kerygma that 
understood it that way from the outset.  The temple associations with 
sacrifice are obvious, but even before Jesus time, sacrifice had taken 
on a metaphorical character as in “The sacrifice acceptable to God is 
a broken spirit.”

Willis rightly points to the importance of God's reputation in both 
testaments.  P.T. Forsyth speaks of God the Holy Father, and describes 
God's holiness as the antithesis of sin.  There is no way sinful 
humanity can reconcile itself to the holy God.  But God can, and does, 
in an act of divine love from God's side that is a sacrifice, a 
sacrifice of God as much as to God.

One can say that Jesus' blood sacrifice is the end of blood 
sacrifice.  Here is a new temple and a new priesthood; here the saving 
victim is both priest and sacrifice.  Freely offering his life to the 
Father in the Spirit, the man Jesus reconciles (which is what the 
Greek word translated as atonement also means) sinful, dying humanity 
with the Holy Father in a trinitarian act of the Godhead.  Sin and 
death are defeated and the veil of the temple is torn in two.  The old 
has passed away, the new has come.  This once and for all character of 
the cross means blood sacrifice is no longer required.  So the cross 
answers our question:  God does not demand blood.

Rick Floyd
Pittsfield, MA

Richard Floyd
rfl...@berkshire.rr.com

> From: elli...@charter.net
> To: Confessi...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: God's Blood
> Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 17:06:25 -0600
>
>
> Thanks, George.
>
> First, I read Packer's endnotes & found them masterful.
> 1
> During WW2, I got numerous letters with censor-blacked-out words/
> phrases/sentences.  Packer's article brought this WW2 experience to 
> mind:
> to go with the Christian Century article, what of Scripture would we 
> have to black out?  For starters: Is.53 (representative 

> [substitutionary!] suffering), the Lord's Supper texts,much in Paul 

> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.10.23/1953 - Release Date: 
> 02/14/09 18:01:00
>
>
> >

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Confessing Christ Open Forum" group.
To post to this group, send email to Confessi...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to Confessing-Chr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Confessing-Christ?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[Willis Elliott]

Thanks, Rick.

Amen to all you say, especially "the rich, thick intertextuality of the record."

A few comments:

1

As disease is manifold, so is sin.  As the cure must match the disease, the gospel as good news must match the particular shape sin is taking in a particular time/place/culture/community/heart - i.e., how sin is being committed and consciously experienced as wrong (whether specific attitudes/behavior, or the sense of "something wrong") & in need of change.

2

While Greek has 8 stems for "reconcile," only one - katall- - means change from enmity to friendship, from alienation to community.  In the NT, only Paul uses it (5x verb, 4x noun [in LXX, 3x]): he perceives the human condition as lethal separation, distance, isolation, loneliness from God; & he preaches change ("Yes we can [change]!") through repentance & faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.  /  Loneliness in today's America is at least as deep as it was in Paul's Hellenistic civilization.  In "Loneliness as a Way of Life" (Harvard/08), Thomas Dumm says that trying to ease loneliness may deepen it; it's a crippling, existential reality of the human condition: we are adrift in the universe, our selves "lost and pitiful."  In "Loneliness" (Norton/08), Jn.T.Cacioppo & Wm. Patrick do not deal with the possibility of a cosmic-divine overcoming of loneliness, but say there may be some relief with a romantic partner, a friend, and/or a "collectivity" - though attention to any one of the three may fray the other two human connections.  (Notes on both books are from WSJ 11.29-30.08.)

3

The earliest known usage of "ATONEMENT" is 1513 (OED), & a dozen years later it appeared in Tyndale's translation of the NT, 2.Cor.5.18 (but King James, here, uses the more common "reconciliation").  In this passage, Paul characterizes the gospel as a "ministry of reconciliation."  In vv.18-21, katall- (Vulg. reconcil-) is used 4x.  (Greek uses an additional 8 words for reconciliation: a big subject!)  (For "aton-," Greek uses 20 words, none of them in the NT.)  (For "propitiation," Greek uses 6 stems not in the NT + 1 (hilas-) in the NT.)

4

After writing the above, I checked "Atonement" in a few classic wordbooks / theological dictionaries.  All so biblically-theologically solid!  So sad that so many now imagine that they can improve the Christian gospel by reducing its heritage.

 

Grace and peace--

Willis

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Richard Floyd

To: Confessi...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2009 10:36 AM

Subject: Re: God's Blood - the doctrine of the ATONEMENT in light of Daniel.L.Bell Jr's "God does not demand blood" (Christian Century 2.10.09)

Atonement talkers,

Gabe has prodded me to get into this conversation, so here goes.  Asking me about the atonement is a bit like asking Nero Wolfe about orchids; you may not want to know that much about it.

I think Herb and Willis' analyses of the Bell article are right.  To give Bell credit, he seems to be addressing the hatred many liberal mainline Christians have for the cross, and at least he wants to affirm it in some way.  Roger's anecdote about the UCC ordination candidate who spurned the cross is not imaginary.  Such stories abound.  I witnessed some of this animus last summer at the Craigville colloquy in the reaction of  a few to my paper:  The Cross and Violence:  Is the Word of the Cross Good News or is it Bad News? which I attach because it deals with many of the issues in this conversation: 

 

I also want to affirm Herb and Wanda's insight that the atonement is not so much what God requires of us, but what God does for us,  doing for us what we cannot do for ourselves.

Bell's essay lacks a proper Trinitarian frame to understand the atonement in a manner that does justice to the riches of scripture on the subject.  

As I have written many times, if your starting place is a deity who then sacrifices the human Jesus, it is morally reprehensible.  But this unitarian god is not the  Christian God, and such characterizations are straw men.

In George Lindbeck's now iconic book The Nature of Doctrine, he describes one of his ideal types as liberal/expressivist, Paul Tillich being the model.  This approach says what we are describing here could be described any number of other ways.  I think this theological approach predominates in the UCC and it is a disaster because it can't grasp the particularity of the Christian story.  I think some of the need to apologize for the cross comes from the fact that it is still a scandal, because it doesn't fit the other modern and postmodern meta-narratives that people live by.

So people don't like the cross because it's icky.  They condemn it because it fosters violence, or masochism, or sadism, or other things that right-thinking people don't like.  Apart from asking whether any of these indictments are true (is it true, for example, as Bell writes, that “the logic of blood sacrifice often shapes the way Christians act.”?) can you have a cross-less Christianity?  Bell, at least, wants to say no.

So we have a cross at the center of our faith, the actuality of atonement, as Colin Gunton's great book is called.  What do we do with this fact?

Foremost is to abandon liberal/expressivist attempts to say what the cross means some other way( ie. as the apotheosis of human sacrifice) and to attend closely to scripture, to the rich, thick intertextuality of the record.  Richard Baukham's God Crucified argues that there was never a Christology that didn't understand Jesus' death as a sacrifice, that our Gospels preserve a pre-Markan kerygma that understood it that way from the outset.  The temple associations with sacrifice are obvious, but even before Jesus time, sacrifice had taken on a metaphorical character as in “The sacrifice acceptable to God is a broken spirit.”

Willis rightly points to the importance of God's reputation in both testaments.  P.T. Forsyth speaks of God the Holy Father, and describes God's holiness as the antithesis of sin.  There is no way sinful humanity can reconcile itself to the holy God.  But God can, and does, in an act of divine love from God's side that is a sacrifice, a sacrifice of God as much as to God.

One can say that Jesus' blood sacrifice is the end of blood sacrifice.  Here is a new temple and a new priesthood; here the saving victim is both priest and sacrifice.  Freely offering his life to the Father in the Spirit, the man Jesus reconciles (which is what the Greek word translated as atonement also means) sinful, dying humanity with the Holy Father in a trinitarian act of the Godhead.  Sin and death are defeated and the veil of the temple is torn in two.  The old has passed away, the new has come.  This once and for all character of the cross means blood sacrifice is no longer required.  So the cross answers our question:  God does not demand blood.

Rick Floyd

Pittsfield, MA

Richard Floyd

rfl...@berkshire.rr.com

On Feb 17, 2009, at 5:13 PM, jeasleasland wrote:

to go with the Christian Century article, what of Scripture would we have to black out?  For starters: Is.53 (representative [substitutionary!] suffering), the Lord's Supper texts,much in Paul (e.g., 2Cor.5.21, Gal.3.13).  Many texts not mentioning blood in sacrifice imply it; e.g., the scapegoat alone in the wilderness will be eaten.

> From: elli...@charter.net
> To: Confessi...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: God's Blood
> Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 17:06:25 -0600
>
>
> Thanks, George.
>
> First, I read Packer's endnotes & found them masterful.
> 1
> During WW2, I got numerous letters with censor-blacked-out words/
> phrases/sentences.  Packer's article brought this WW2 experience to 
> mind:
> to go with the Christian Century article, what of Scripture would we 
> have to black out?  For starters: Is.53 (representative 

> [substitutionary!] suffering), the Lord's Supper texts,much in Paul 

> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.10.23/1953 - Release Date: 
> 02/14/09 18:01:00
>
>
> >

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Confessing Christ Open Forum" group.
To post to this group, send email to Confessi...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to Confessing-Chr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Confessing-Christ?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

---

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.10.25/1958 - Release Date: 02/18/09 08:57:00

[George Demetrion]

Thank you Ryan.

 

I had a portion of this message written and lost it in cyberspace.  I'll try to do quick catch up.

 

Efforts to articulate the unfathomable depths and mystery of the faith can only be paltry at best, but we try.  In this respect, Packer's emphasis on models, mystery, drama, imaginative construction, and kergygmatic focus when speaking of the suffering of Christ are well taken.  Second, post NT theology often uses words, phrases, and articulated concepts not explicitly in the Bible, but at its best reflective of the deepest intent.  One things of the emergence of formal Trinitarian doctrine as a theological necessity in light of pressing historical challenges acting upon the faith once for all delivered to the saints.

 

On substitution, Packer takes a broad approach and even a broad approach to "penal substitution" in the trajectory from substitution and retribution to substitution and divine love and various points in between.
 

Okay, I think I'm caught up with what lost; so let's slow the pace down a bit.

 

One of Packer's main points is that neither "penal" nor "substitution" encompasses everything there is about the Atonement, which needs to be grasped to the extent that it can be through the prisms of the Cross and the Resurrection (e.g, Phil 2:5-11).  Another broad point is that by the most reasonable implication substitution includes (but is not limited by) Christ's substitution for humankind's sin against God which in some fundamental sense needed to be requited  by the requirements of God's justice and holiness.  In this sense the propitiation is for humankind's sin against God.  What else are we going to make of such passages as Romans 5:6-10; esp 9-10, "Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood (by his blood, sir), much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.  For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life."  As I read this, Christ's death justified us sinners to the wrath of God as a result of our self-imposed disobedience and alienation from the living God.  I know this is tough language and does not resonate much in contemporary culture, but I think part of the discipline of faith is imaginatively allowing ourselves to be refashioned through such discourse, particularly when such merited "wrath" is only one, but a very important aspect of a fully embodied living faith.  I don't see how this is not so.  However, mistakes can be made when we take a singular theological strand and presuppose that as a total biblical theology.

 

In terms of Christ taking on the wrath of God: "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us--for it is written, 'Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree--so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith (Gal 3:13). Isn't this, in many respects succinct shorthand from the journey from Gethsemane to Golgotha?  Then, "For our sake he [God] made him to be made sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God" 2 Cor 5;21.  Thus, the great transfer—our sin for his righteousness and through that reconciliation with God.  I don't know how once can but get to such an interpretation if one takes this passage and the others as core theological datum on their own terms.  That does not mean that there doesn't need to be substantial apologetic, hermeneutic, and expositional work, but on the grounds of exegesis and core dogma these Scripture speak pretty much for themselves.  On that respect I don't even need any theology of "penal substitution" in that i prefer to let the language of Scripture speak in its own idiom, which of course needs exposition as well as exegesis.

 

Back to Romans 5:12-21, what do we make of the Old and New Adam metaphor other than that the New Adam became the source and embodiment of righteousness that the Old Adam had lost, which sounds like another exchange in which, God did demand the sacrifice; that is, the blood of Christ for the propitiation of humankind’s sin, which the son, with much anguish, freely gave.

 

In this respect, I think we need to read Hebrews in light of Leviticus in which our greater Melchezidek who became both high priest and sacrificial lamb was "smitten by God, and afflicted..., wounded for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace and by his stripes we are healed. [Thus] we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned everyone to his own way, and the Lord has laid upon him the iniquity of us all." (Isa 53:4-6).

 

I think this core sacrificial transfer which was needed in some way to reconcile God's unfathomable love and his need for holiness in which 'the wages of sin are death," yet within the mystery given to us, "the free gift of God [becomes] Christ Jesus our Lord" (Rom 6:23).

 

I think this is more than simply Jesus suffered the consequences of collective human sin, though it certainly was that; for if that were it he could serve as mediator of the New Covenant in showing us the way.  Yet the deeper revelatory truth is that Jesus was not merely the Jewish messiah, which if that were the case only, would be of some passing interest to student of ancient history, but the way, the truth, and the life himself as God incarnate in human flesh in which New Adam paid in full the price of Old Adam's disobedience in which through his stripes we are healed.

 

As I interpret the faith once for all delivered to the saints, seeking to go all the way with Christ means (among other things) accepting all of this in the most profound kerygmatic, liturgical, and dogmatic sense so that it can speak as well in the most compelling fashion to our existential sense between the mediation of lived reality and the small still voice of the Holy Spirit.

 

I think it was something along these lines that Packer was getting at in "What did the Cross Achieve?"

 

 

George Demetrion
 

---

Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 16:40:38 -0500

Subject: Re: God's Blood

From: ryan.dow...@gmail.com
To: Confessi...@googlegroups.com

[fcba%40comcast.net]

I don't have time to get into this wonderful discussion but I think this Kierkegaard quote fits quite well:

 

"Woe to the person who could comprehend the mystery of the atonement without detecting anything of the possibility of offence; woe again to him because he thought thereby to make God and Christinity something for study and cultivation." (The Humor of Kierrkegaard  ed. Thomas Oden, 104)

 

Chris Anderson

----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Floyd" <rfl...@berkshire.rr.com>
To: Confessi...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2009 11:36:40 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: God's Blood - the doctrine of the ATONEMENT in light of Daniel.L.Bell Jr's "God does not demand blood" (Christian Century 2.10.09)

Atonement talkers,

Subject: Re: God's Blood

[Ryan Dowell Baum]

Dear George,

Thanks for your response, and also, by the way, for offering the Packer essay for our study.  I enjoyed it immensely (I've read through it three times already!) and find it to be the most sympathetic articulation I've read of penal substitution.  The only thing I can't get beyond is Packer's insistence that theology cannot be built on human reason or on human likes and dislikes, and yet in his insistence that retribution is the only way a holy God can do justice, Packer seems to put quite a bit of stake in the rightness of his own conscience (which he universalizes) that he be made to suffer for his sins.  We all know that theologians bring their own biases, interests and perspectives to their readings of Scripture (I don't think there's anything intrinsically wrong with this), but I'm not sure that Packer is as honest as he should be that there is no truly objective reading of the texts. 

Webb says in his essay:

In another epistle Paul pictures Christ's victory over the curses—the retributive consequences—of the Law in this way:

And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God has made alive together with Jesus, having forgiven you all trespasses, having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And God has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. Having disarmed principalities and powers, God made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it (Col. 2:13-15).

You can see from this passage that God (or God's wrath) is not the enemy that the cross defeats. On one hand it is true that the Law lays out just retribution for wrongdoing: "the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us." On the other hand, there is not one word in the Law or one principle in God's nature that says God cannot sovereignly determine to forgive instead of imposing the last letter of condemnation. Jesus suffers not to procure God's mercy, but to express it, by silencing every accuser that would argue against God's mercy.

I would encourage you again to read Webb's essays for yourself (http://www.selftest.net/simplegospel/essays.htm); they do speak to many of the issues you raise.  I think he answers convincingly the questions you raise about 2 Corinthians 5:21 and Isaiah 53.  He also does not deny the reality of God's wrath, only that Jesus received it on the Cross.  Jesus in his saving death indeed saves us from the wrath of God that is to come, but he was not himself required to be victimized by God's wrath on Golgotha--the wrath he experienced there was that of humanity.

Grace and peace to you,
Ryan

[herb.davis]

Dear Confessors,  this has been a rich discussion. We have been  given us in excellent resources and insights.  I wanted to share a few comment of Barth on the Heidelberg Catechism and then wonder if there is any way to reconcile the modern distaste for the cross and God's sacrifice through the second person of the Trinity.  How do we talk to Dr. Bell?  I think ryan and George may have started this conservation.

 Comment from Barth from "Learn Jesus Christ Through the Heidelberg Catechism" questions 35-44.  Barth focus is on the Right of God in Jesus Christ  "redemption through righteousness means that redemption happens through a judgment in which the right of God as the presupposition of every human right is established again.  The accusation of God stands.  The sentence is executed. The wrath of God breaks out and burns and consumes sinful man.  The anathema, the curse happens... The debt must be paid with the death of the debtor. "God is not mocked, for whatever man sows, that he will also reap."

 

When God's right is reestablished through judgment, it is revealed precisely in this judgment who God is.  When he exercise his judgment and asserts himself as the Lord, it is not a matter of a triumph of God in the defeat of man but rather of his intervention for man.  The right of God consists in his freedom not to destroy but to save the law-breaker.  It consists in the majesty of his free grace.  God does not will the death of the sinner, but that he repent and live.  The depth of God and his righteousness is that he is totally strong and totally compassionate." p.69-70'

 

Peace, Herb -----Original Message-----
From: Confessi...@googlegroups.com [mailto:Confessi...@googlegroups.com]On Behalf Of Ryan Dowell Baum
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 12:49 AM
To: Confessi...@googlegroups.com

[jeasland]

Gabe, Oceanic Ecumenist: I just got a YES from the Roman Catholic Priest in
Ft. Pierre South Dakota that St. Johns WILL participate in the Wild Horse
Ministries evangelistic event !! YES. God is good, all the time, God is
good! Blessings from the happy grasslands---------Roger

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gabe" <gfa...@comcast.net>
To: "Confessing Christ Open Forum" <Confessi...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2009 8:51 PM
Subject: Re: God's Blood

[Gabe]

"No required blood" readers and commentators,

First question to a theological proposal of this sort is: what
authorizes it? Thus the matter of theological authority/method can
precede assessment of theological content.Especially so as evaluation
of any such proposal assumes a concept of authority and interpretation
of that authority.

If one examines a proposal from an ecumenical cum historic Christian
stance, the elements and priorities of authority look something like
this. Is the proposal coherent with 1) the biblical source of
authority, its substance (the narrative from creation to consummation)
and its center, Jesus Christ 2) in dialog and continuity with the
church universal as its principal resource in understanding the
biblical source, especially so "tradition" (from the ecumenical
creeds that express the biblical narrative to BEM on the eucharist,
for example, a tradition always corrigible by fresh encounter with the
source, substance and center) 3) responsive to the current setting/
context with its issues and idiom?

It will be interesting to try to apply these criteria to the Christian
Century article. Also to Packer's penal substitutionary view.

To be continued.

--Gabe

[Gabe]

Herb,

Fair enough, as far as it goes.

However, what you have cited below has to be held together with a
remarkable statement like this one by Barth, developed elsewhere in IV/
1:

"God does (italics) die in the Son. If this were not so, then we could
not say: 'The Son of God has died for us.' Here we remember the
lordship of God over life and death. Even the realm of darkness is not
outside God's power. God took our place in the realm of death, which
is our realm. If we refuse to say that God dies on the cross, then
there is no reconciliation" (KARL BARTH'S TABLETALK, 52, edited by
John Godsey)

Thinking about Bell, on the one hand, and Packer on the other, could
either of them put it that way?

--Gabe
.................................................................

[George Demetrion]

Hi Ryan.
 
I need to be quick here, but again, thanks for your thought and time.
 
I did print the first 15 pages of Webb's work and have begun to take a look.
 
On Packer, there is merit in what you are saying, which, in some respect Don Payne has identified in his challenging to read book, The Theology of the Christian Life in J.I. Packer's Thought.  There he argues that there is much in Packer's pietism and theology that is more anthropological than he may think.
 
In terms of reason, I think Packer in his most typical frame of mind would say something like human reason is a powerful tool, but the power of the mystery overrides any effort to capture or depict it in and through human words, even as these must be relied on a great deal.
 
Moreover, as Payne argues, and a point I find plausible, is that Packer will find more resonant power with those influenced by modernist thinking than post-modernistic thinking, and he takes his emphasis on faculty psychology to task in particular.
 
While I may not disagree with Payne too much (the jury is stil out for me) I think Packer's influence and his own faith journey goes well beyond the critqiue that Payne lays out. In that resoect, I think that Alister McGratth in his biography of Packer and in his collection of Packer's essays, has gotten much closer to the true spirit of the man.
 
Best,
 
George Demetriom

---

Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 00:48:42 -0500

[Willis Elliott]

Ryan:

 

We all agree that the Cross was efficacious, but the question of its necessity is quite another matter: you do well to raise it, as Jn. C. did indirectly by asking what the Cross changed.

 

Let's put it simply:

The Cross did not change God: the Cross was & is God changing us, the world, history, & the future.

 

Further: If we are canonical Christians, using the whole Bible to understand the Cross, we understand the Cross to reveal a timeless-eternal truth of God's nature: the Cross has always been in God's heart.

 

Before the Cross event, our Lord revealed God's Cross-nature in the Parable of the

Forgiving Father (Luke 15).

 

Grace and peace--

Willis

----- Original Message -----

From: Ryan Dowell Baum

To: Confessi...@googlegroups.com

---

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

[Gabe]

Warning. Long note.

Daniel Bell is a notable young Lutheran ethicist who has given special
attention to Anselm in his writing and teaching, so this article, part
of a new collection of essays, God Does Not, published by the Brazos
division of an evangelical press, Baker, is a serious challenge to
inherited understandings of the cross and deserves scrutiny in kind.
Also, I invited him by e-mail to join our discussion.

First, a follow-up an earlier comment on the importance of identifying
the concept of authority and interpretation of a theological proposal.
Noticeable here is the weight Bell gives to the pervasiveness and
justification of violence in our world today, a natural concern for
an ethicist. Thus the place of “setting” or “context” in one’s
theological method bulks large. Of course this strikes a responsive
chord, considering the horrors of the hour, and, along with that the
attention the church is giving to it, as in the World Council of
Churches' “Decade of Violence” project, and closer to home, the recent
Craigville Colloquy on the subject. Bell’s teaching locus in a gun-
toting section of the Bible-belt South brings this context close to
his own home.( I gave the Hein-Frey lecture on Lutheran-Reformed
proposal of full communion at his Lutheran seminary in Columbia ,
South Carolina and can testify to that.)

Bell wants to communicate the gospel by speaking to our condition, a
worthy move. Further, he rejects the simplistic response of removing
the cross from our faith and church buildings (Delores Williams, based
on her “child abuse” charge, wants to replace it with the mustard
seed). The author, rather, retains it, but re-interpret its “logic.”
Not only is the cross much part of Scripture, but removing it
“undercuts the laudable goals of those who reject blood sacrifice.”
Bell even makes allowances for “just war” in a passing remark,
indicating that there is more here in his point of view than the
conventional pacifist critique, the latter getting more attention in
these days of violence. Nor has he drawn explicitly on the scapegoat
theories of Rene Girard, also influential today on re-construing the
cross in the context of the issue of violence. Bell's reference to
Martin Luther King, Jr. is a clue to his approach. That is,” Christ
displays the fullness of divine charity….,” a “fidelity” to God’s
loving outreach to us, an “obedience” to the non-violent ways of
Deity, a love of our enemies, and therefore a willingness to take the
consequences. The cost for fidelity is the violence rendered against
him. Hence, the cross of Jesus is a symbol of God’s persevering love
for us, his readiness to forgive us, and thus a model for our own
behavior as Christians ready to pay the cost for that obedience. Such
a view, he believes, is far better than inherited notions such as
appeasement of the wrath of God by the substitute sacrifice of Jesus
for our sin, or upholding the moral order by the same. No more
“throwing that god a piece of red meat.”

Some questions, based on both theological method and content: 1) Does
the importance of “context” in this construal of the cross bulk so
large that it outweighs the actual testimony of biblical
“text,” (source), or prompt a drift from exegesis into eisegesis? 2)
Is the dismissal of inherited understandings of the cross other than
the one here proposed, a fair reading of substitutionary views, for
example, Karl Barth’s ? 3) Where is the recognition that the stress on
Jesus “obedience” is, actually, a theme in traditional understandings
of the cross, as in the concept “active obedience” (medieval and
Reformation , allied, however in those cases, with Christ’s “passive
obedience”)? 4) Is the doctrine of the atonement , one and the same as
an interpretation of the cross (having in mind Calvin’s 3-fold office
of the Work of Christ- prophetic, priestly, royal)? 5) Does the word
“display” and the view of Jesus’ obedience as a model for us to follow
not place this proposal in the long history of exemplarist, Abelardian
and subjectivist theories of the atonement in which the Work of Christ
is to show us something we otherwise would not know in order to
inspire us to act in kind ( rather than God doing something on the
cross to reconcile the world that otherwise has never been done)? 6)
Is the fundamental problem in the Christian story to which the cross
speaks violence? Or is it sin? Playing God, which may express itself
in violence, or in other self-elevating ways that might even include
non-violence in sins of omission where protection of the victim is at
stake (police, just war)? 7) Given the chapter on the universal fall
in the Christian narrative, how is there not accountability, and thus
judgment, integral to any change from alienation to reconciliation
(divine-human and human-human)? While critiquing the “liberal
Protestantism” of another era, H.R. Niebuhr’s warning continues
timely: “a God without wrath brings [humans] without sin into a
kingdom without judgment through a Christ without a cross.” Behind
this I hear Anselm's question to Boso as to whether he has considered
"the exceeding sinfulness of sin" 8) Given the ecumenical consensus
on the New Testament understanding of the Person of Christ as one
Person in two natures, where in this re-interpretation of the cross
is the role of divine nature taken into account, as in the “crucified
God”—the Atonement presupposing the Incarnation ?


--Gabe

[John Cedarleaf]

Wanda and Herb,

Here I am catching up on Friday. Thanks for that so simple and yet so
profound turn, "It is not we who offer sacrifice, it is God.....God
gives blood." Once again it is about God and not about us and it is hard
to get around that for so many, since most of our life is about us, even
our life of faith.Going back to my question, on the run, last Sunday,
"who is changed" by all this, not God, who comes to us, but we who are
the recipients of God's amazing grace and love in the cross of Christ.
Who knows if this conversation continues, maybe I'll drag out old Paul
Peter Waldenstrom!

John

>
> Herb,
>
> Perhaps this is where the difficulty lies in wrapping our heads around
> the atonement .... beginning with the kenosis of the incarnation God
> did the unthinkable...the almost unimaginable... what for the world
> was and still is scandalous - utter foolishness:
>
>
> It is not we who offer sacrifice, it is God, in the second person
> of the Trinity, who is the sacrifice. It is not God who requires
> blood, it is God who give blood."
>
>
> You are so right...God does not require ...God offers. This is what
> drops us to our knees in praise and thanksgiving....freeing us to open

> our clenched fists and offer ourselves - as _living_ sacrifices - to

> God and neighbor....not because we must but because we can.
>
> Wanda
>
>
>
>

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: herb....@mindspring.com <mailto:herb....@mindspring.com>
>
> To: Confessi...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:Confessi...@googlegroups.com>

[Willis Elliott]

Thanks for the fill-in, Gabe.

 

Our Lord as Prophet-Priest-King (as you say) was on the Cross.

Our UCC logo emphasizes the third.

Needed: a trialog of the theologies of the Cross.

 

Grace and peace--

Willis

----- Original Message -----

From: Gabe

To: Confessing Christ Open Forum

Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 7:07 AM

Subject: Re: God's Blood

---

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.1/1961 - Release Date: 02/19/09 18:45:00

[Ryan Dowell Baum]

George,

Thanks for your response.  I have to say that despite some pretty major theological differences I have with Packer, I really enjoy reading him--the precision and elegance of his argument provides a great deal of pleasure to the reader and offers up wonderful opportunities to really sink one's teeth into good, meaty theological work.  You have made me want to pick up a copy of the Alister McGrath collection...I may just do that.

Willis,

You write: "The Cross did not change God: the Cross was & is God changing us, the world, history, & the future."  I believe I agree with you.  But this statement puts you into substantial disagreement with Packer, who says that God is indeed the primary object of the atonement.

Gabe,

I found question #7 in your last post, "Given the chapter on the universal fall in the Christian narrative, how is there not accountability, and thus judgment, integral to any change from alienation to reconciliation (divine-human and human-human)?" particularly intriguing.  While the penal substitution theory does rely very much on a particular understanding of God's judgment, I don't think it ever really answers the question of accountability.  In penal substitution, Christ is judged vicariously for the sins of humanity, and therefore Christians avoid accountability for their sins--the only ones who remain accountable and under judgment for sin are the unsaved, those who do not accept Christ's sacrifice.  It seems to me that whichever atonement theology one subscribes to, the essence of the Good News is that God does not judge us and is willing to wipe away accountability for our very real sins, at least the ones we've committed up to the point of our contact with the Cross. 

In some ways, I think Abelardian atonement theology, at least in the abstract, does the best job of dealing with the accountability question--for him, the atonement, if it means anything, must empower us to live in such a way that our lives are different.  Abelard seems to say that the atonement enables Christians to live lives in which there is empirically less sin, and therefore less to be held accountable for.  It is people who ignore Christ's sacrifice and don't allow it to melt their hearts into changed living, who will continue on in their lives of sin and be held accountable for it on the Day of Judgment.   I don't know if this actually pans out in the real lives of Christians--do Christians really live lives that are so different from our non-Christian neighbors?--but it seems to me to do a better job of answering our desire to see God hold humans accountable for their own sin.

Grace and peace to all,
Ryan

[George Demetrion]

George,

Thanks for your response.  I have to say that despite some pretty major theological differences I have with Packer, I really enjoy reading him--the precision and elegance of his argument provides a great deal of pleasure to the reader and offers up wonderful opportunities to really sink one's teeth into good, meaty theological work.  You have made me want to pick up a copy of the Alister McGrath collection...I may just do that.
 

Hi Ryan,
 
Yes, that's exactly the attraction I have to his work, also.  The McGrath collection is definitely worth it.
 
Best,
 
George