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…

For The Love of Zeus

I’m half way into “The Cross of Christ” by John Stott and I have to say I have a much tougher assignment in the book swap challenge with Jeremy (ReverendRockstar). He has given me a weighty book about the classical theory of atonement. I held this view at one point in my life so for me it is less about gaining new information and more about reflection and reconciliation. My first impression is that I’m not sure I realized how bizarre the fundamentalist faith of my childhood appears when viewing it from the outside looking in. I have found some positive areas for agreement and I’ll expand on those in later posts, but first I need to make a couple of observations.

As with most religious viewpoints, there are a few assumptions and biases that must be accepted before anything downstream can make sense. The first assumption of John Stott is a very strict theistic view of the divine that reminds me of the gods in Greek mythology. In order for the classical theory of atonement to work, God needs to be something like Zeus who is a transcendent intellectual being consciously controlling, manipulating, and sentencing mankind from some other remote planet or maybe a parallel universe. Stott doesn’t go into these ontological assumptions in this book. Maybe that is something my conversation partner Jeremy can clarify. I know that in my past, the reason I held tightly to ancient anthropomorphic images of God is because I had just never thought about any other options. For fundamentalists, the whole point of being Christian is to train people to adopt an ancient view of the universe complete with ghosts, demons, miracles, and supernatural after-life. Depending on what century you live in, it may also include a flat Earth and an orbiting Sun.

The questions I have at this point are: How much of this ancient worldview does a Christian need to hold and would it be a problem if that changes again in another 500 years? In this version of reality, where is this kind of God? Do I need to have an opinion about “his” location or for that matter “his” gender?

I realize that what I’m doing in this post is beyond the scope of Stott’s book. He begins with all this as assumption and it isn’t fair to critique his book for not explaining how he got there. That isn’t his intended purpose but his argument makes no sense without this lens imposed onto the narrative. The more I read, the more I feel like Stott makes the Bible sound like a science fiction movie or one of my childhood favorites "Clash of the Titans".

I thank God that I have more choices than strict theism and atheism! For me, God is not a Jewish version of Zeus but instead God is the ground of all being. God is not an intellectual being but the essence of all intelligence. I do think Jesus is divine, but "divine" doesn’t have to mean that his molecular structure was different or that his DNA was not a derivative of his earthly mother and father. I see Christianity as people embracing Jesus’ model for the ideal way to be human and participating in a society based on peace through justice (the promised-land and/or the kingdom of God). The issue for us is how we can each be transformed into our full potential as humans (born-again, resurrected, reborn) and then how we can make this unique vision of life a reality right here inside the space and time that we can control.

Meanings of the Cross

In an effort to bridge the gap with conservative fundamentalist faith, I’ve agreed to a book swap with one of Mark Driscoll’s Acts 29 Network pastors. I am going to read a book of his choice and he will read one of my favorites. Jeremy and I are already friends and we have had enough conversations to know where we differ. He is leading a new church right down the street from my office and we both call ourselves Christian but I’m progressive, I view Jesus’ message as largely about peace, justice and community, and I don’t have a traditional theistic view of God. My current understanding of his faith is that he is a conservative Evangelical who feels the central theme of Christianity (and the entire Bible) is that God grants special status in afterlife to those who learn to believe the right doctrines about Jesus' death.

It should be interesting and I pray it will be productive. I hope the results will be that I’m better equipped and fair in my criticism of the religious right. My goal is to look for areas we can agree and to clarify the items that are merely superficial differences in linguistics. I know there are significant points of disagreement, but I have hope that bridges can be built.

I’ll be reading “The Cross of Christ” by John Stott and the book I’ve chosen for Jeremy is “The Last Week” by Marcus Borg and Dominic Crossan. I had a couple of books in mind but this should be a nice compliment since the two books represent very different views of the purpose of Jesus life and the reasons for his death.

Stay tuned for more…

Climate Change Video

Take back Al Gore's Nobel Peace Prize and give it to this guy.

http://view.break.com/381084 - Watch more free videos

GW and God

Mr. Deity is back for season 2 with more good stuff.

From Crackle: Mr. Deity and the Intel - Season 2, Ep 1

Imperial Domestication of Jesus

Like most Evangelicals, I was taught a very specific technique for looking at scripture. You pick out a verse and think of ways that the verse can be applied to your personal life. You let the Holy Spirit guide you and reveal the meanings that are intended as a fix for the issues in your own life. There is no doubt that this can “work”. Many lives (including my own) have been blessed by this method and the Bible can be an extremely transformational and comforting book when read this way. However, what happens when we take some of the most profound social and political statements ever written and domesticate them by reducing them to truths about our own personal relationships and private needs? Is there a downside to this approach?

Christians often complain that our religion is loosing its position of influence in the world. I believe that Christianity got what it has asked for when it domesticated the good news of Jesus. When the message of Jesus was skewed toward merely another personal message about private issues of piety, self-help, and the eternal salvation of our souls, then Christianity became a private religion with private results. Let’s face it - it is easier to focus on ourselves because it can often feel like we just don’t have any control over our city, state, national, and global issues. I think this is exactly what the Empire wants us to think. The imperial forces that acquired and institutionalized Christianity needed to domesticate its radical anti-imperial message by shifting its emphasis and that shift has huge psychological effects to this day. We have been told that those big issues are “in God’s hands” and therefore out of our hands. We have lost hope in the ability to make big changes and when hope is lost then the battle is over. We feel a lack of power so we focus on what we can control, then we disconnect from the system and lose more power so we focus more on ourselves. This vicious cycle continues until all hope is lost and all power has dissipated.

Brian McLaren is challenging this domestication of Jesus in his new book “Everything Must Change”. He is challenging Christians to look deeper at our sacred texts and recover its message of hope for big changes and its lost challenge to be more than a religion of personal piety. Jesus’ critique of the Pharisees was not a criticism of their “Jewishness”. His message was not about being less Jewish. Jesus’ message was about returning Israel to its full sense of being God’s people and it’s calling as a radical catalyst for global change.

[in this book]We have raised the possibility that Jesus’ message might be seen as an alternative framing story that, if believed, could save the system from suicide. To test this possibility, we will need to consider the possibility that “Jesus” as we have understood him has himself been domesticated and made part of the dominant framing story. For Jesus to save the system, we must first, in a sense, save Jesus – by reframing him outside the confines of our dominant and largely unquestioned assumptions. (p. 73)

The conventional view, however, is more dualistic, with human souls and other “spiritual” things in one category and human bodies and other “secular” things in another. This dualism conveniently keeps faith a private and personal “spiritual” matter so believers see themselves as “just passing through” this world, steering them away from “worldly” social engagement beyond their personal, family, and church-related concerns(p.81)

Christian Re-Education

This clip of Anne Coulter proves what Marcus Borg has frequently said, "The most important need for Christianity today is the re-education of adult Christians." The worst thing about Anne's hate speach is that she insists she really believes it. This type of theology gives Christianity a bad name. I guess if she were a man she could speak at Mark Driscoll's church.

Domesticated Jesus

More good stuff from Brian McLaren whose new book "Everything Must Change" is making a big splash this month.

"We [Christians] have to ask ourselves some deep questions. To what degree have we lost the plot? To what degree have we ended up with a religion that talks about Jesus, sings about Jesus, but Jesus has just become kind of a hood ornament on our own vehicle that we're driving to our own destination."

"Do we really get the good news of Jesus or are we living out another story using a lot of Jesus talk plastered onto it."

Everything Must Change

I received my copy of Brian McLaren's new book "Everything Must Change". It started a bit slow and I was worried that it might devolve into a watered down form of environmental activism (not that there's anything wrong environmental activism) but thankfully it is so much more. Brian has a gift for articulating important elements of Biblical scholarship in a very digestible format for those who are new to theological discussions. In addition to being accessible, the book is organized with group discussions in mind.

I'm sure this book will offend some very conservative people (because everything does), but Brian has succeeded in presenting this material in a non-threatening manner that holds onto just enough traditional theology to entertain a broad audience. I understand why he was a successful pastor because he has created a perfect balance of prophetic critique, education, and inspiration. This message is right on target to make huge waves in the Evangelical Christian community where people like Marcus Borg and Dominic Crossan are not allowed. I hope it finds its way into that space. It is sure to open many hearts and minds.

Reality, Illusion, and Death of Self

I was a big fan of the movie “The Matrix” when it first came out. The two sequels were horrible because they focused on the fighting scenes and ridiculous special effects, but I was drawn into the symbolism of reality vs. illusion in the original movie.

I have been reading “Mystics and Zen Masters”, by Thomas Merton on and off for about a month now. The book is much more than a description of contemplative prayer (Zen). It is a collection of writings that explain various ways in which men of different traditions have conceived the meaning and method of the “way” to the highest levels of religious/metaphysical awareness. The book discusses diverse religious concepts of early monasticism, Russian Orthodox spirituality, the Shakers, and Zen Buddhism with a directness that is not usually found when reading about such topics.

It becomes clear in Merton's discoveries that you cannot separate religion and psychology. Religious experience is deeply entangled with our human definition of "self" and that includes our self-consciousness, self-awareness, and notion of individual identity. Most importantly, I’ve realized that our self-identity as well as our religious belief is an illusion. Most of what we mean when we say “religious belief” is our descriptive symbolic language that we use to interpret and discuss our experiences. This description (the collection of our symbols and myths) is useful and helps us maintain our sanity as we live in constant tension between reality and illusion, but we can get lost as we replace one illusion with another illusion. Zen (the practice of meditation) is one way to wake up from our illusions. Our religious beliefs can at times feel more like the psychological caulking used to help fill the cracks in our incomplete understanding of the world. Zen gets right to the core of this problem, which is our flawed identity as something separate from God (and/or everything and everyone). I see this as the overarching theme of the Bible. The Bible is a story of how humanity combats our fixation on the preservation of our self-identity and separateness (sin) and then restores oneness with God (at-one-ment) through Christ (our message bearer and symbolic example of death to self and rebirth into the collective identity of God). Often the stories and symbolic language becomes dominate and we lose the realistic meaning. We need to return to the simple doctrine-less message about changing from a self-centered nature to an other-centered nature.

I'm not positive, but I think the movie's image of the Matrix is meant to be a negative portrayal of the illusions of religious naivety or maybe it is the hypnotic indoctrination of pop-culture. As with all symbolism, you can read into it what you want. If the movie's intention is to promote extreme individualism and a stronger development of self-identity then I feel it represents a less ideal western slant on reality. Western thinking views the process of "waking up" or enlightenment as a liberation away from a collective identity toward a more individualistic self sufficient state of being (unplugging from the illusion/matrix). I question that logic and suggest that maybe our worship of individualism is actually a destructive illusion and our solution may be to plug into the reality that we are all interconnected. This is not a pro-conformity mentality that devalues creativity and individual choice. It is a realization that as we celebrate our differences, we should wake up to the fact that we are all made of the same "stuff" and have the same problems, hopes, and dreams. You might even say we are made in the same image.

Either way, (by plugging into reality or unplugging from illusion) the main point is that the boundaries and differences between people, communities, and nations are merely the illusions created by our perspectives and self-conscious paranoia. If you view the planet Earth from space there are no visible dotted lines, political boundaries, or red and blue states. On the other hand, I may just be a person who has opted for the serenity of the Matrix.

Change is Coming...

I pre-orderd Brian Mclaren's new book "Everything Must Change" (I'm addicted to Amazon.com) and it should arrive at my door in the next day or two. As Brian says in the video, it's about two basic questions: 1) what are the biggest crises facing the world today, and 2) what do the life and teachings of Jesus have to say to those global crises? The early reviews say it will be even more controversial than his previous books.


I hope to find a few local friends that will agree to begin a discussion group. If you are in the Augusta area and would like to buy a copy and begin meeting to discuss the book then let me know.

Shame on me

In my last post, I implied that Mark Driscoll might be saying things that make him sound like a religious bigot. Actually, I must confess that I did more than imply that idea. I appreciate the many positive AND critical responses. I take to heart the fact that pointing out bigotry in others with provocative language may not be expressing the type of loving kindness I've written about on this site. Please note that I did express apprehension and uncertainty in my original post but I obviously didn’t make my concerns clear enough.

I’m sure progressive Muslims struggle with the same problem of discerning when to speak out against fundamentalism and when to stand by and watch it erode the reputation of your own faith tradition. Do we wait for religious exclusivists to become violent as they did in the crusades or Nazi Germany? You could argue that it is already happening today in our American Government. It isn't just the violence that is harmful. The shame and humiliation inflicted on Christianity by fundamentalism is harmful for all of us that value the good name of Jesus. I’m still considering how to respond to the people I’ve met who espouse that rhetoric.

However, I’m not willing to accept the idea that what I did was bash Driscoll for his theological differences to mine. I never said “hey, this guy is a bigot because his theology is not as good as mine”. I may disagree with his theology but that is not why I suggested his language may be a form of bigotry. He seemed to be rebuking the practice of religious tolerance and his specific language spreads the ideals of religious separatism. Maybe in my original post I should have used the term “seeds of bigotry” and I probably should have explained the specific details I was addressing rather than leaving the door open for others to connect my theological disagreements with the charges of bigotry.

Religious Bigotry

The type of Christianity that is in this video makes me sad. It isn't his specific theology that bothers me because he does have a deep faith that transformed his life. His views may work as well or better than mine, but Mark Driscoll's target is young Christians and he seems intent on creating yet another generation of fundamentalist religious bigots who feel their brand of faith is the only one of value. His words have a strong undercurrent of religious bigotry. Our Christian faith and religious tradition is beautiful but its value doesn't come from devaluing all other faith traditions. You don't need to create an atmosphere of artificial fear in order to protect your faith tradition or your family. We are already suffering because our society has a fear of people and traditions that differ from our own. Unrealistic fear and bigotry has cost millions of lives.


I appreciate his desire to protect his daughter, but what is he protecting her from, a "liberal" husband that will value her as an equal person rather than a second class citizen? The worst thing he said was his aversion to studying the Old Testament in context of Israel. If he can't figure out why we need to understand Jewish tradition and context in order to fully understand the Bible then it is hard to take anything else he says seriously. Also, is he implying that the only worthwhile reason to follow Jesus is because he won't go to hell?

This video comes on the heels of Driscoll's recent critique of the growing Emergent Conversation which launched a wink revolution in his honor.

How does progressive Christianity respond to this? Is it hypocritical to point out the potential harm caused by spreading religious bigotry? Is that spreading fear of fear? Or by being silent would we be making the same mistake as progressive Muslims who have allowed fundamentalist bigots to become the face of Islam? I'm struggling with how to respond.