Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Vampire Theology
Just in time for Halloween, I’m continuing my thoughts on the classic theory of atonement described in “The Cross of Christ” by John Stott.
I’m beginning to realize that maybe instead of a sci-fi movie or Greek mythology, the appropriate analogy for his description of atonement might be a B-grade horror flick. To make his theory work, you must make another assumption borrowed from Greek philosophy. In order for atonement to have its purpose of securing a preferred status in afterlife (heaven vs. hell) their must be a dualistic separation between physical bodies and spiritual souls. In other words, there needs to be something immortal which could be “alive” or “animated” outside of our physical body and then “saved” or “condemned”. It is a clever but very ancient way of explaining human intelligence and emotions. We can thank Plato for this mind/body dualism but it may not have been applied to the life of Jesus until Christianity began spreading outside the ancient Jewish world.
Most people today would understand “soul” as a symbol for our passion, hopes, and purpose and we would recognize our highly refined intellectual skills as a product of evolution. But for fundamentalists, atonement theory requires an ancient application of the word “soul” as a ghost-like being living within our body and surviving after our death. It is debatable if Jesus would have had that view given his setting in 1st century Jewish culture. Jesus lived in a time where the worldview of his people was shifting to embrace the Greek philosophy so it is possible but not probable that he embraced that shift. That logic had not been deeply absorbed into the Jewish religion. Even if Jesus did embrace this dualistic philosophy, most modern biblical scholars find it hard to imagine that he would have understood an otherworldly aspect to the system of sin and forgiveness. For Jews, sins are clearly actions that have their origin and resolution here on earth so the idea of sin and forgiveness playing out in a cosmic battle with stakes that are beyond our sight seems to be out of context for Jesus. This might explain why the application of atonement theories on top of Jesus’ life forced Christianity further and further from its Jewish roots. Early Christian theologians like Paul were quick (and probably correct) to adapt his message to fit this growing gentile worldview. If messages don’t adapt to the overriding worldview of a population then they most likely die. This ability of these early Christians to adapt the message of Jesus into the worldview of other cultures may be a huge success factor in the spread of Christianity in the Greco-Roman world. Maybe we should learn from that approach.
It is more probable to assume that the problems addressed by Jesus were the same sins of injustice spoken about in the prophetic voices of Jewish prophets like Isaiah, Micah, and Jeremiah. All of the Gospel writers linked Jesus to the Old Testament prophets in their narratives by having him quote specific passages which symbolized his desire to continue their prophetic critique of the wealthy elite in Jerusalem. It makes sense to think that since he quoted them, he (and his narrators) agreed not only with the words of those prophets, but also their political meaning. That meaning is clearly the end of oppression by corrupt leadership and domination by a foreign empire.
Placing hope in medieval atonement theories has about as much as a value as a mystical clove of garlic. Remember, these theories came from the same people that invented the idea of splashing around holy water to fight off evil spirits and that wasn't even a movie. Still more to come…
11 comments:
Ironically (given your detest for Empire), you're critiques are in many ways similar to first century Rome's critique of the Christian faith.
Nero continuously charged Christians with insurrectionism (claiming Jesus is Lord), cannibalism (Lord's supper), incendiaries (teaching the disolving/destruction of the elements by fire), immorality and disintegration of family relationships.
The Roman historians Tacitus and Suetonius called Christianity "a mischievous superstition." Sounds familiar...
Thankfully, it's not about what we know or don't know, but rather who we know. The true Gospel is extremely relational.
Mike--I think many of your points are spot on, although it may be worthwhile to avoid the temptation to eliminate elements by oversimplification. Just because Jesus and his contemporaries probably didn't have the same dualistic worldview as contemporary evangelicals doesn't mean they didn't believe in something, e.g., that they identified as 'demons' (cf. the pig herd demonization in Luke).
Your thoughts on the atonement are of course spot on. I'm also sure you know many evangelicals would agree with you about the problems with certain takes on 'the atonement' (see for example Greg Boyd's latest post at his blog: gregboyd.blogspot.com).
Peace,
-Daniel-
Jeremy,
Rome also built pretty good aqueducts and roads. They apparently got some things right! My dislike of empire is not a dislike for Rome or for critical thinking. It is a dislike of oppression and domination which is the basic ideal of Imperialism.
I agree that the Gospel is relational. The good news is that there is a real possibility of community based on peace and justice. The Gospels writers say it is "at hand" and it is "within us". I agree.
Daniel,
Thanks for both the affirmation AND the critique. I should point out that I don't feel Jesus was void of belief in a supernatural God. He would have to have an ancient worldview. He just didn't have a Greek worldview. His worldview may have been even worse. My point is that it isn't his worldview we should preserve. We should preserve his vision and mission not his science (or lack thereof).
Sounds like a book I'd like to read. Very interesting in its Jewish analysis of why Jesus' atonement found no easy reception among Jews at large, but did fair much better with gentile audiences.
Fascinating stuff. I've been aware of the problem of Greek dualism seeping into Christianity for some time. It's really hard to get American Christians to let go of their assumptions and understand this.
My understanding of the Biblical idea of soul (same word for life, interestingly) is that it is your self. You. The totality of your thoughts, beliefs, feelings, sins, and virtues. And since soul means all of me, then I understand that all of me needs to be remade.
thanks for writing this. It's challenging stuff.
Gordon (RLP),
Thanks for stopping by to visit my blog. I've been a regular visitor of your blog for a long time. Your honesty and openess is amazing. Thanks for all the inspiration.
I've enjoyed your posts on reading this book. I do disagree, however with your assumptions about the soul. First of all, I don't hink "most" people would agree that it is merely "a symbol for our passions hopes and purpose." And I'm not sure fundamentalists think of it as a "ghost like being living within their body." At least, when I was a fundamentalist, I didn't quite think of it that way. I would have said it is the eternal part of us. And I guess I still do think that, not in a dualistic my body is evil but my soul is pure kind of way - but sort of how RLP said it - it is the essence of who we are. And when our physical hearts stop beating, we still will exist in some way or another. Just my thoughts.
Jen,
I didn't really hear anything in RLP's description that is any different from mine. I think you are just more comfortable keeping the conversation at a high (symbolic) level. The only reason my view may sound foriegn is that it is rare for Christians to discuss it at any level below the surface level symbolism.
I said "passion, hopes, purpose" while RLP said "totality of your thoughts, beliefs, feelings, sins, and virtues". You said: "the eternal part of us".
Those all sound like the same things to me. They are all equally vague. Do you agree? I think you just get squimish when we begin to talk about how that might physically work.
I still find it interesting that when I discuss a more detailed defininition of souls, afterlife, or divinity, you attach words like "merely" or "only" infront of my definitions when you read them back to me. I would argue that what I and RLP described is a "more than" definition. It is the same symbolic definition with MORE details attached. I'm describing "the eternal part of us" in detail rather than being satisfied with ONLY a symbolic term.
I also find it puzzling that the people who complain about attempts to describe how this stuff may work never have their own alternative explainations other than just falling back to the symbolic language which is so generic it could mean anything and often ends up meaning nothing.
Maybe we should have this conversation over a few shots of tequilla so it would really be confusing. ;-)
Hmmmm... I guess what makes me squeamish is the thought that when my body dies, I cease to exist. I know I tend to use the word "just" in front of your descriptions of things (unfairly so), but in this case I used the word merely in the sense that I don't think our "souls" or "passions, hopes and purpose" are something that "merely" exist on this earth for as long as our bodies do. Does that explain it better?
Jen,
Don't you think it is possible for your thoughts, beliefs, feelings, sins, virtues, accomplishments, and relationships to hang around longer than your body?
Isn't the whole point of resurrection to imagine that Christ's thoughts, beliefs, feelings, virtues, accomplishments and relationships continue to live in our hearts and minds? Jesus died 2000 years ago but I still have a relationship with all of those aspects of "him".
When I talk about not believing in a literal soul, what I mean is that there is no casper the friendly ghost. I do however believe all those aspects of our lives could continue eternally, but it would depend on IF we developed an "eternal" life. If we don't develop anything worth surviving then there wouldn't be anything left, or even worse there could be something horrible that remains.
I get what you're saying and I think it is possible. It's just not what my present understanding is. ;)
Oh - and no more tequila for me.... EVER.
Post a Comment