Why Did Jesus Die?

The last couple of posts have dealt with the death of Jesus, specifically the theory of Penal Substitutionally Atonement held by many in western Christianity. The conversation stemmed from the comment, "But I thought God was a good guy", my 4 year old daughter made while reading about the cross in her children's bible book.

I discussed briefly how I do not hold to PSA theory, that God, in order to forgive us, needed to take his wrath out on someone else... Specifically his own son. After all, Jesus forgives people of their sins before he ever dies on the cross.

So what do I think about the death of Jesus?

I think I need to begin by confessing that the "incarnation", that Jesus was somehow God in flesh, means a lot to me and affects much of what I believe about God and how I interpret scripture.

One of Jesus' disciples had asked Jesus to show them the Father. Jesus' response,

"...anyone who has seen me has seen the Father."

This statement speaks volumes to me. Ive heard someone put it like this, "It's not so much that Jesus is like God, but that God is like Jesus".

In other words, if you want to know what God is like, look at Jesus.

So I read scripture and try to see the world through this understanding, that God is like Jesus. So for instance, when I read stories in the Hebrew Scriptures of God demanding the deaths of innocent children and women (and everything else that moves) or floods the entire earth wiping out everything that exists, flags are raised because that looks nothing like Jesus.

So what does this have to do with the cross?

As I have insisted before, Jesus was non-violent. He taught non-violence, he lived a non-violent life, and he would have rather died than to have killed. You can in no way ever justify violence through Jesus because violence is evil. After all, Violence is a big part of the sin God is saving us from, read the first few chapters of Genesis.

That's why Jesus claimed that he came to show us a better way to live, and then would teach things such as "turn the other cheek", "do not repay evil with evil", and "pray for and do good to those who hate and persecution you".

I believe Jesus' ultimate example of what he taught was indeed the cross. Jesus chose to die rather than resort to the tactics and methods of the empire/world. It was Jesus who told Peter to put his sword down rather than violently act in defense of him.

God could not resort to violence in order to save us, but instead God saves us by way of the cross by showing us what we are to be. God becomes our example of how we are to live by exposing sin and violence and showing us that there is a better way. A better way than what the world offers. A way that looks foolish and weak to most people.

Also, the cross shows us that God is there with us. For that is what incarnation is about. God is not seperated from this world or its suffering as we sometimes suggest. Instead, God is present in the suffering. The climax of Gods humanity comes when Jesus is suffering and dying BECAUSE of our sin. In other words, I believe God has "been there". God rejoices with us, cries with us, grieves with us, and even suffers with us. In scripture, we see God weep, fellowship, die, and even repent. God feels and experiences what we do. Whatever you and I are going through God has/is experiencing it as well.

Because of what Jesus did on the cross (not to mention what he did three days later), we no longer need to respond to our enemies with violence and revenge, for we have been saved from that (so to speak). Instead, we can now confidently respond in love and say things like "Father, forgive them...". This is part of the Good News Jesus proclaimed, that there is a better way. A way that brings life and life more abundant.

Note that this is merely a little glimpse of where I am right now. I believe that the cross is full of mystery, and I am OK with living in the tension of that mystery. I don't think we do it justice when we isolate certain verses and metaphors given throughout scripture, and with them, formulate absolute statements and doctrines that other must follow or else. I believe Jesus (his life,death, and resurrection) is bigger than all that.

Did Jesus HAVE To Die?

Growing up, I heard and was taught about one theory of the numerous theories of atonement within Christianity. That is, Penal Substitutionary Atonement, that Jesus died and was completely forsaken by God (punished) in our place so that we could all be forgiven through faith in Christ. There was really no other way around it. You had to accept this understanding of atonement in order to be saved (I've had pastors tell me this).

Many people don't even realize that this is a theory and not an absolute, and that there are many other theories about what happened when Jesus died on the cross within (orthodox) Christianity.

Due to the doctrine of "Original Sin", that the world was cursed and condemned by sin because of the disobedience of Adam in the garden, blood was required in order for God to forgive and to reverse the universal curse. And not just any blood, but that of God's own Son.

In other words, God was/is so angry with sin that wrath had to be displayed. And that wrath was intended for us. But, because God is so loving, the wrath was put on his only Son instead. God had to kill Jesus so forgiveness could be offered to us. God's wrath was released on Jesus, who took on our sins, so we could be justified. You know, "just-if-I'd" never sinned.

So Jesus' dying on the cross was required to bring about what we call salvation from hell. This understanding holds that just as there was some sort of cosmic shift when Adam ate the fruit in the garden, there was also some sort of counter shift when Jesus breathed his last breath and shed his blood on the cross. A gap was bridged between us and God.

I'd like to note that this "sacrificial systematic" understanding of forgiveness of sins is one of many metaphors used throughout scripture when referring to what Jesus did on the cross.

But doesn't this make God out to be, as my four year old suggested, "a bad guy"? Probably not for most of you because you see the sacrifice of one's son for someone else as a loving act. However, if anyone else would have acted in such a way, the authorities would be called and the father would be locked up for child abuse/murder.

But where I probably have the biggest problem, is that this theory also suggests in every way that God's forgiveness could not have happened unless God's wrath was satisfied. God couldn't fully love us until God brought agony, suffering, and death to someone else. Then and only then would God be pleased and be able to offer His forgiveness.

Now, I know that this will rub many of you the wrong way, for Jesus' death on the cross is the center of your Christian faith. I understand that.

I want to clarify that I am not denying that the cross was some sort of act of salvation. I believe it was/is for several different reasons which I hope to touch on in the next post when I give a little more insight on how I understand the crucifixion of Jesus. However, I don't hold to the understanding that the cross was God's way of taking out his uncontrollable wrath on someone so that He then, and only then, could offer forgiveness and salvation to others.

But I Thought God Was The Good Guy?

Ive said it before, my daughter may make a great theologian one day. She is already learning to ask the tough questions. Questions that I wish I would have asked when I was younger. Questions that many adults are afraid to ask and are even discouraged from asking.

My wife wrote recently about a discussion she had with Eisley which stemmed from a story in her children's bible book. As my wife wrote about, Eisley is fascinated with the story of the woman who washed Jesus's feet. In that story, the onlooking religious leaders are described as people who were "angry enough to kill Jesus". Eisley relates this to the crucifixion story where, in her children's bible book mind you, it is said that "God turned His back on His Son while he was dying".

You could see how this (one of many) understandings of atonement, that many of us think not much about, could raise questions for a little girl who loves her daddy. A father turning His back on His Son who is dying on a cross. Eisley knows her daddy would never do such a thing, and so she has a hard time relating that god with "good".

So she asks, "But I thought God was the good guy?"

Because even a four year old little girl sees something wrong with the idea of a blood thirsty God killing His own Son in order to be able to forgive everyone else.

Love Is Patient, Kind, and Doesn't Need A Sale's Pitch

In my last post, I suggested that our methods of evangelism have been skewed and the gospel has become a mere product we Christians are pushing. So why does our evangelism look and feel a lot like a door to door vacuum cleaner salesperson?

It probably has to do with our understanding of the gospel. If our gospel consist of merely getting into heaven and escaping hell, which it does for many evangelical Christians, then that is all that matters. Our job is to convince people to accept Jesus so God doesn't condemn them to burn in hell for all eternity.

I mean that's a pretty good sales pitch if you ask me.

"Do you want to burn and be tortured for all eternity in hell?"
No? Ok good, say this prayer and you won't have to. Nice doing business with you. See you on the other side (if you were sincere)".

I think that's what is so appealing about that version of the gospel.

It's easy and convenient. We don't have to be concerned with justice issues, environmental issues, etc as long as we are "winning" souls for Christ. And we like to win.

Not to mention there is always a "them", Those who don't believe and haven't accepted Jesus like we have. And whether most will admit it or not, we like for there to be a "them". Those that will get theirs one day because they didn't do something that we did. Those people, that in one way or another are not as good as we are. If you don't believe me, suggest that it could be possible that God might save everyone one day and then listen to some of the first responses you get... "

"but what about (insert name of people you don't like here)?".

But I believe the gospel is more than that. Actually I don't believe the gospel has anything to do with that. If it did,I think Jesus might have said something about it when he proclaimed the gospel, But he didn't.

Instead, Jesus talked about good news. Good News for people here and now. Good news for the poor, good news for the outcast, good news for those who don't think they are good enough. Good news for those who do think they are good enough. Good news for the whole world. The only people Jesus ever seemed to get upset with were the religious people who thought they were "in" and everyone else was "out". He was pretty harsh with those folk because they had a bunch of "them's". Jesus saved words such as "hell" for people like that.

I can't help but think there is more to the good news than what we have come up with. I think many have gotten it wrong. I think I have got it wrong. I think the good news is better than any of us can imagine, and therefore an invasive sales pitch could never do it justice... It needs a proclamation.

It needs to be proclaimed by people who have tasted it. From people who have in one way or another experienced the grace and the love of God and don't want to keep it all to themselves.

For love doesn't make sales pitches. It doesn't boast by seeing how many converts it can make. It simply exist for others. And that, in itself, is enough to change the world and hardest of hearts.

Jesus For Sale

I remember the moment so vividly... Walking up to complete strangers, strangers enjoying their vacation on the beach, as one of my youth walked beside me holding a frisbee with a bible verse on the back of it.

"You guys want to play frisbee with us?" the student asked the strangers, only after being instructed by me to do so.

For the next 10 minutes or so we enjoyed playing frisbee with these two teenagers, but now it had come time for our (rehearsed) "pitch".

"If you guys died tonight do you know for sure that you would go to heaven?"

Well, you know where this is going. About 3 minutes later, the two boys had earned accepted their ticket into heaven. My youth and I then walked away never to see them again. However, it was worth hearing the applause that night in our youth meeting after telling everyone we had scared led some people to Jesus. The Bible verse covered frisbees, along with the Holy Spirit, had done their job. I'm sure the threat of eternal damnation in hell if they didn't accept Jesus had something to do it it as well.

I think back to all the other similar situations, and am honestly embarrassed. Yet, this is the only method of evangelism I was ever taught growing up in the church. Go door to door, invade peoples home, take up their free time on vacation, and give them some sales pitch.

And yes, I know some people end up praying the prayer... But that's because it's the only way to get you to leave their house. I know how it works. Once the prayer is said... You leave, you mark them off the list, and you give a praise report to the congregation on Sunday where everyone can applaud your bold faithfulness and your ability to successfully sell Jesus to other people.

We all know how it feels when people come to our door. Whether they are selling satellite subscriptions, encyclopedia's, home phone plus Internet bundles, or religion they all have several things in common. They are there to push a product, they have a rehearsed script, and they are all annoying as hell.

At least the satellite people usually have the decency to leave if you are in the middle of dinner or have company.

Making a conversion is not biblical evangelism. No where does the scriptures tell us to go into the world and get people to say the sinner's prayer so Jesus can live in one of the four chambers of their cardiac organ.

It actually says to go into the world and preach the GOOD NEWS and make disciples. But notice how we usually focus on bad news like damnation and hell when we tell others about Jesus and the so called gospel. Why? Because fear is easy to sell... and it makes us feel good when someone buys what we are selling. Which is why our "sales pitch" always begins with the "consumer's" potential geographical locations after they breathe their last breath.

Neither Jesus, the disciples, Paul, or any other person found in the scriptures ever "preached the good news" in this way. Instead they proclaimed the kingdom of God, and they didn't dwell on what would happen one day after they died. No, they were excited about what God was doing then and there and what that meant for the rest of the world... past, present, as well as the world to come.

Is The Virgin Birth Important?

Christmas is over (in the commercialized holiday sense at least) and it was a good one for me and my family.

As far as the "war on Christmas" goes... I'm not sure whether or not a winner was declared. Was Christ kept in Christmas or not? Who knows... I guess for now the battles have ceased and we can move on to other, just as important battles, such as Easter and presidents day.

One thing I didn't touch on but did see a lot of conversation about this year was the virgin birth. Of course, the virgin birth is one of those staple beliefs for many Christians. And many will probably be upset that i'm even bringing this up,even though my intent is neither to affirm or deny such a birth

But I've heard many say that belief in a virgin birth is necessary for salvation and crucial to obtaining a ticket to "glory land" (that's southern baptist talk for heaven by the way).

Just look at how Rob Bell was treated several years ago (back when conservatives still considered him a Christian) for even suggesting that one could possibly think about questioning the virgin birth in his book "Velvet Elvis"...

"

What if tomorrow someone digs up definitive proof that Jesus had a real, earthly, biological father named Larry, and archeologists find Larry’s tomb and do DNA samples and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the virgin birth was really just a bit of mythologizing the Gospel writers threw in to appeal to the followers of the Mithra and Dionysian religious cults that were hugely popular at the time of Jesus, whose gods had virgin births?

But what if, as you study the origin of the word “virgin” you discover that the word “virgin” in the gospel of Matthew actually comes from the book of Isaiah, and then you find out that in the Hebrew language at that time, the word “virgin” could mean several things. And what if you discover that in the first century being “born of a virgin” also referred to a child whose mother became pregnant the first time she had intercourse?" - "Velvet Elvis" pg 26

Even though he goes on to affirm the virgin birth on the very next page, many critics wrote Rob off as a heretic... And this was long before he suggested the possibly that God may love everyone who has ever lived.

I am not denying (nor affirming) the virgin birth here, but I find it odd that it has become one of the non-negotiable beliefs for so many.

Here are just a few reasons why the virgin birth could have such a place of priority for some.

A "literal view" of scripture. The bible says it so I believe it. But for most, so called "literalist", their literalism only applies to certain abstract beliefs and is thrown out the window when it comes to the teachings of Jesus. (like loving our enemies and giving to those that ask).

The strict belief in "original sin" and the understanding that Adam's sin is passed down through the male seed. Therefore, if Jesus was born of an earthly father, he too would be infected with the disease. This was a very popular belief in and around the first century. Therefore, a virgin birth is crucial to the gospel (aka salvation from hell).


However, I find it strange that such an important and necessary occurrence is only mentioned in two of the four gospels. What were Mark (the earliest gospel) and John (the latest gospel) thinking? Not to mention Paul never brings up the virgin birth one time.

And then there are the accounts we do have which occur in Matthew and Luke, and are very different from one another. One version mentions a miraculous star that appears as a guide, wise men (or kings) bearing gifts, and an "exodus like" genocide ordered by the king In an attempt to kill baby Jesus forcing the Joseph family to flee to Egypt for safety, while the other gospel mentions shepherds and angels but nothing about a star, athreat to Jesus' life, or a retreat to Egypt for that matter. There are several other significant differences as well.

So my question... Do you think a belief in the virgin birth is necessary or important, and if so, what about those who only had either Mark's account of the gospel or John's version, neither mentioning anything about a virgin birth?

Tony Jones' Book On The Emerging Church $.99

Now you can get Tony's book, "The Church Is Flat: The Relational Ecclesiology of the Emerging Church Movement" for only $.99 for your kindle. I've had it for quite sometime and love what I have read so far.

So if you want to know a little bit (actually a lot) more about the emerging church, here is your chance whether you are an advocate and especially if you are a critic. Now you will have some descent material straight from (one of) the horses mouths instead of some of the mess you came across by using Google.