The Problem of Biblicisim - "My God Does Not Kill"

 

My God Does Not Kill

by R.E. Slater

"Biblical literalism or biblicism is a term used of the manner of interpretation of the bible based on the subjectivity of the reader's beliefs and the religious views of the group(s) the reader participates and identifies." - res

 

"Redaction criticism is a critical method for the study of biblical texts. It regards the author of a text as a subjective editor to the source materials available to them at the time, such as oral legends, societal beliefs, cultural mores, attendant consequences, all of which may have shaped the theological narrative to the ideological goals of the author." - res 

My God is not this God...

God is not a God of wrath or violence. 

The problem the picture above points out is that Christiandom - as well as many other religions including Judaism and Islam - believe God is right-and-just in dispensing death, judgment, punishment, wrath, and cruelty.

This belief about God has ever been a problem. It has created many awful deeds in the name of religion.

A Couple of Things About Perspective...

Let's suppose for a moment that the biblical flood was what any other flood has been when experienced by humanity. A natural disaster....

Let's also suppose that from time immemorial mankind holds a general ignorance about climatic events... especially including those natural  events which occur far beyond the settled environs of a population.

As example, consider when ancient settlers of the Mesopotamia region beheld the large, green fertile valleys between the great rivers of the Tigris and Euphrates. Did they consider it as a natural flood plain? Probably not.

But this did not stop the area from having the potential for loss and destruction by once-in-a-century or millennia flooding.

Let's further consider that such disastrous rainfalls happen even now when the conditions are ripe for a natural disasters. Currents examples abound now as then: 1) Any of flood-prone low-lying areas as the swamps upon which the city of Houston, Texas, was built. Or, 2) the tidal lowlands surrounding the city of New Orleans.

Doe God bring these disasters or nature? Let me kindly suggest that, if anything, God was doing all that He could in trying to prevent such disasters through nature and through mankind. God is a God of love... not a God of judgment and wrath.

And in process terms, God cannot directly interfere with a freewill creation. Which is where divine partnership comes in re help from nature itself or through mankind. God does not rule over nature but works with nature. God's physical hands-and-feet must come creation and mankind if God's will is to be done.

Thus, process theism is exactly opposite of classic theism's divine interruption overruling creation according to God's will than through submitted natural process agencies. This means that in classic theism miracles happen occasionally whereas in process theism miracles per se are everyday natural occurrences.

In the past I would use the term "synchronicity" when describing the partnership between God and creation versus a classical theism's "forced unnatural interruption" of the natural, God-inhabiting flow, of creation, known as panentheism.

Does God Purposely Send Naturally Destructive Events?

In process theism the answer is NO. God does not bring the flood, the fire, the earthquake, or the wind upon mankind to punish, kill, or judge mankind.

These are naturally occurring events because creation bears the same freewill agency as mankind does. Agency is not evil. But agency can be evil and affect both environment and people.

Of course, many of my biblical brethren would say this is not true. The bible tells of God's judgment upon both the evil and the innocent on this earth and that we must accept all which happens in this life as from God's hand.

An attitude which is the very kind of Christian attitude I both challenge and disagree with.

Why?

Because a God of LOVE is not this kind of dipolar, schidzophrenic, monstrous God. God brings beauty, wellbeing, and healing into a world of sin and suffering. A world which brings consequences upon itself by its own acts when choosing to live in unloving ways to nature and mankind.

How Do We Know God is a God of Love and Not a God of Wrath?

I come from a dispensational, fundamentalist Christian tradition which thought of conservative evangelicalism as "liberal" in good-humored but serious surmise. Yet despite my early faith heritage I can no longer reconcile the passages of the bible which speak of God so terribly or so controllingly in a harming, determinative future. This would also include the belief of a future Armageddon or eternal hell.

Why?

Mostly because I realize these errant beliefs come from the Christian tradition of reading the bible "literally". A bible which I have exhaustively studied, dissected, and exegeted from cover to cover for most of my adult lifetime using the very helpful and enlightening covenant theology found in the Baptist and Reformed traditions.

And though I used to abide by the hermeneutical (interpretive) adage of reading the bible "literally, grammatically, historically, and later... contextually," I now have dropped the literal interpretation of the bible while keeping the latter three helpful tools of biblical interpretation. Literalism makes the bible say what it really isn't saying....

And so, as I was transitioning in bible college from fundamentalism to evangelicalism I knew the "literal" portion of interpreting the bible had to be dropped. While at the same time continuing to uphold my faith heritage's belief system until I couldn't....

The God of the Bible is the God of Today...

My Spirit-led change began when I started asking questions my church didn't wish to ask. Questions of doubt and uncertainty - not of my faith, but of my faith's traditionally held doctrines and beliefs. It rapidly became a series of questions I needed to answer. Which I did... beginning with the very first days of this website until now.

And it has proved to be a very long and arduous journey with very little outside help at first except that of the Spirit of God's daily revelation. In a very real sense you might say God was "inspiring me" to comprehend who He was and is. Which is not so unusual if we think of God's nature as one which quite naturally walks and talks with His creation. Communication, fellowship, and especially relationship, are all part-and-parcel of God's image set into creation including God's daily communion with us.

And if God "inspires" mankind today no less than God did in earlier bible eras, then God's Spirit will continue to enliven hearts, minds, and spirits even as He had done in ages past using the present day's contemporary pens, voices, and works of fellow Christians similarly pursuing God. Amen?

And once realizing this it was but a short walk over to reading the bible not literally... but redact-ively as I weighed out the pens, voices, and deeds of the church's present fay pastors, priests, prophets, and apostles. Spirit-inspiration is happening even now as it did then... but always with the knowledge that we discern the religious views of God's spokespeople both then as now....

A New Hermeneutic I Give unto You this Day...

I can hear Jesus speaking this phrase to my heart and ears even now... "A new hermeneutic I give unto you this day." A covenant founded upon Jesus' life, passion, ministries, atonement, and resurrection. A covenant of love.

Wow! A new covenant of LOVE... not just to God's remnant of Jesus followers but to all mankind. Wow! Which is also why I prefer an open communion to all willing receivers as versus a closed communion to only church members.

Which is why I cannot see the God I know at times in the Old Testament when it's biblical narratives speak of a God of judgment and wrath.... Or even in parts of the New Testament such as found in the eschatological prophecies of God-produced woes and travail.

When hearing of God "doing this or that" which is unloving and harming my mind switches to redacting man's words of God written in the bible. It doesn't take a God of wrath to reap harm and cruelty upon creation when knowing the immediacy of judgment through the very acts of sin and evil. Acts which are judgments in themselves without any need of God's further compounding of divine judgment.

No. God is not a God of wrath and judgment. This can be done quite easily on its own within a creation full of agency which is more than able to fulfill "God's" religiously invoked job by biblical passages read literally rather than redactively.

Which is how I now react to biblically conflicted passages... passages written by well-meaning "inspired" men and women of the bible who were no less filled with religious zeal than today's Christians preaching the same inaccurate things of a God of love.

And finally, where did all this divine wrath and judgment get us? I don't think very far when reading of history's religious crusades, insurrections, inquisitions, and forcible ills placed upon mankind and creation.

However, if churches were to bear dogmas of a loving God... would not such religious attitudes been far more preferable to those religious dogmas of man-made holiness crusades?? (Perhaps a "just" war concept from time to time might arise. A doctrine which I also have problems with but admit in my heart I may react similarly when seeking to protect family and community).

God is a God of LOVE through and through and through...

To wrap things up, my new Jesus hermeneutic is reading the bible through the eyes of God's love and not God's wrath. A divine wrath which I will strongly observe comes from the idolatrous hearts of men placing all their prideful, legalistic  sins upon the divine figure of the Creator-Father Himself. Such a punishing god cannot be the God I know and love.

Thus, I read the bible redactively, not literally. In it I read of a God of love beyond the wickedness of religious men's hearts.

The other helpful redactive aid I've added is a new philosophical theistic foundation. One that isn't some eclectic version of pagan Semiticism like Akkadian, Babylonia, or Persian dialectism; nor Platonic, Hellenistic, Scholastic, Thomistic, or even Modernistic construction. And even though I love postmodernism and embrace its many positives over modernistic culture, I realize even this isn't enough.

Neither Western philosophies nor Continental philosophies (which latter I vastly prefer over the West's usage of philosophy). No, the theistic foundation I am finding the most helpful is the one replacing all previous foundations with that of Process Philosophy and its correspondent Process Theology as they each morph in lockstep with the other in helpful guidance and reading of  Scripture.

In short, any faith, and especially the Christian faith, must be a faith of love, kindness, and acceptance of difference. A faith which will pulpiteer for the rights of the other. A faith of hope, beauty, and joy. One that sings and walks boldly into brokenness of this world.

Where an open future informs us of a God who would partner with freewill beings to remake this world into a place of paradise against the ills of sinful agency and the resultant evil it produces.

This is the God I will preach and the very One who tells me this world may become an Eden should we rid ourselves of the very unbiblical doctrines we hold of a God of wrath taught by much of the church because, well, its the way it has always been done and believed.

And Noah? The lesson here is not to ignore nature. Learn to co-habitat with it. Don't ignore climate change. Be wise in our decisions. Don't follow the masses should they not listen and ignore God's word placed upon the hearts of his prophets amongst us, like Noah. And to do all that we can to help and not hurt one another. That is my message from the Noahic Flood passages of the bible.

Peace my brothers and sisters,

Look to Jesus. Let Jesus be our God.

R.E. Slater

October 20, 2021

PS

To be clear, I hold to the evangelical tradition of

• one bible, not two;

• one covenant explained in four;

• one God not two;

• an open and relational theology

• etc

PROBLEMS BEING ASKED IN THIS ARTICLE

• philosophical theism

• philosophical consequentialism

• moral exactitude

• the principal of consequentialism

• natural laws v divine laws

• the role of punishment or love in morality

• metaethics v emotivism

• metaethics v religion

• utilitarianism v (social) justice

• the benefits v the effects of poorly constructed religious belief

• whether God, Church, man, or nature determine morality

• whether divine love is the ultimate determiner of everything

• whether love defines justice and all other divine attributes

• whether love is the ultimate prescription for human welfare

• the role of biblicism in misleading beliefs

• the positive role of religion in society (health, learning, well-being, self-control, self-esteem,  empathy)

• the negative role of religion in society (discriminiation, persecution, anxiety, depression, stress, victimization, physical violence, personal harm, societal exclusion, scapegoating, etc)

• whether religion is a blessing or a curse

• obligation to duty and role playing v the intrinsic worth of an act

• the place of principalism in religion (the locality of autonomy, benevolence, justice, etc)

• the role of religion in establishing personal identity and worth

• etc

God is love but -

it takes humans to show God's love...

Love is the center of all bible readings and doctrines

 

Literal, grammatical, historical, contextual... all good approaches except one. Drop the literal reading of the bible where we read our belief sets, cultural mores, and prejudices into the bible. It misinforms and leads to bad theology.

But the last three approaches well informs the Hebraic or Greek Hellenistic beliefs of that day. Not so the literal reading of those ancient cultures.

Which means a good hermenuetic is redactive to the text per the rules (beliefs) of those ancient societal eras.

Which is also why theology is so full of interpretive meanings for different sects and denominations.

The best hermenuetic I have found is this:

"God is love regardless of what religious man thought of God in the OT and NT."

To underscore my point, the Abrahamic Covenant is the same as the New Covenant. God sacrifices Himself in order to enforce and assure His covenant with mankind through Abraham (saved by faith as response to divine act) and later at the Cross through Christ in the New Covenant.

In sum, the best hermenuetic is "Love = Jesus". Put it at the center of all bible readings and not the "bible" per se.

God's Love informs our reading, our faith, our doctrines, our judgments, our actions, our responses, and our worship. Putting any other doctrine in the center removes Love, making God something other than He is.

R.E. Slater

October 13, 2021

Catherine Keller - How to think about the pandemic

CV19 link

It awaits us to determine how we will react to crises in our lives

always with God as our helper as we work towards resolution.

- Catherine Keller, "How to think about the pandemic"

Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_Keller_(theologian)

A Letter from Catherine Keller

https://medium.com/@dostlund_42808/a-letter-from-catherine-keller-1930029c4914

April 2, 2020

Dear Ones,

Particularly, in this letter, ones who claim some seriously biblical, or explicitly theological, orientation. Amidst this pandemic, ones who may be wondering….

Is God punishing us?

We — the human species — certainly deserve it; we have gone way out of kilter in our most basic creaturely responsibilities. We’re out of balance, way out of sync with the wisdom, the Word, of the creation. We have taken our materiality for granted, in utter ingratitude. Isn’t this pandemic, and maybe worse to come, just what we have coming to us?

Is God testing us?

We surely are being tested, tried, exposed in our multiple vulnerabilities — challenged at our edges, both spiritual and physical. And that is not just as individuals and families and local communities. It is also our systems of life together, our economics and our politics, that are being tested. Some are failing worse than others. And our big national system is so far failing

big-time. But are we all together tested? By God?

Is God teaching us a lesson?

If so, we better learn it fast. So often, we have let the most aggressive and greedy portions of our species organize our material interactions, our global economies. Not that they asked our permission. But we who have less power have ceded much of the life of the planet, local and global, to the systems of power. We blame the powerful, but we do not reclaim the power. We have much to learn…so terrifyingly much.

Is God fixing the world?

Our carbon emissions are coming down, with millions of flights grounded. If emissions keep coming down, we might just prevent that 1.5C rise in global temperature. And pandemic can also bring down population levels, which have grown beyond sustainability. After all, the Bible teaches that it took the Great Flood to bring about a fresh start for humanity — and everything else. Almost total decline of the human population and the nonhuman ones too. Later, it took ten plagues to make Pharaoh “let my people go.” Huge collateral damage to the innocent, like Egyptian children and non-Hebrew slaves! Is our present plague the way God — like it or not — is fixing our world?

For many folks who find solace and guidance from their biblical faith, those questions must somehow be answered ‘yes.’ And this sense of divine intervention may lead them to do good, moral things. They can find biblical passages to read literally, to rip out of their context, to ignore millennia of history between an ancient text and our context, and find this kind of God who is directly and violently punishing, telling, testing, fixing.

I respect anyone’s sincere faith. But faith can get trapped in misguided interpretations. So, in the interest of the truth without which faith is an illusion — let me answer those four questions I posed.

Is the pandemic God’s punishment?

The coronavirus is having punishing effects, largely on the most vulnerable and least deserving. But “punishment” is supposed to signify justice. And yet in this and in most of the plagues of world history, the poor and the frail are the main victims. Doesn’t this make them the objects of a horribly unjust punishment? Besides, if God were the direct controlling agent of history, surely such unjust side-effects, such sloppy collateral damage, could have been avoided! Indeed, our getting to this point would never have been necessary.

God, in scripture, wants justice. So…no. God is not deploying the coronavirus to whip, execute, or otherwise punish us. Not even just to send us to our rooms like naughty children. Besides — isn’t punishment far too crude a notion for what we call God’s will?

Well then, testing us? That isn’t so punitive.

No, it’s not as punitive. But do you mean that God designed the pandemic to try our faith or our character, individual or collective? Again…no. Yes, our capacities are being put to the test as a society, as communities, as individuals — but not because God has selected this means to make folk grow better or stronger through suffering. Often, this “test” will have the opposite effect: we may grow weaker and die. Or we will fail the moral test and stock up for mere survival. Or the political system will pour maximum resources into reviving the economic system — rather than into the screaming needs of the suddenly jobless.

But then, isn’t God teaching us a lesson? Teaching us that we are all interdependent with each other — with all creatures, even with viruses?

No. Not if you mean that God has designed the disease to teach the lesson. It is too little too late, on the front of climate justice. And it is too much too fast, in the assault upon the weak. So, even if, improbably, we do collectively, globally — maybe even nationally — learn a great lesson about our togetherness as creatures, it won’t be because God has decided on pedagogy by plague.

Like it or not, you may insist: this crisis may be how the omnipotent God is now intervening to fix a sinful world. Don’t you believe that the Lord works to repair His world — whatever it takes?

Oh, I do think God works always for tikkun olam, the repair of the world. But no! Not by big destructive omnipotent interventions. No, God is no Big Fixer. The story of the flood powerfully narrates the radical new start that is possible after systemic human ugliness and tremendous natural disaster. And let us remember it is a highly condensed story, as is that of the Exodus — not a natural or literal history. Besides, the repair of the world in the Bible is a work of deep care, not careless destruction. The flood and the plagues, including COVID-19, do not care.

The God of Jesus, however, cares infinitely. And precisely for that reason, that God cannot, must not, be understood any longer as “in control,” as the omnipotent Lord who either always already determines all that is (in which case the world shouldn’t need repair in the first place); or as the One who occasionally steps in Big Time to Fix it.

Yet that is a big debate. “Theodicy” names an old theological argument about how to justify God — as just — in the face of unfair suffering. Christians often just go for the afterlife answer: whatever happens here, God will reward His own in heaven. As to this world, with its COVID-19 and other plagues — they assume it is somehow God’s will that we suffer (as punishment, as test, as lesson, as fix) and, well, it doesn’t matter anyway because I and my own are going to heaven when we die. The big supernaturalist shrug of — whatever.

So, no, I do not think that even the heavenly “out” works to relieve us of our collective human responsibility to be and do this world — better. Now.

Well, then, how is God working? Or are you saying that “God” is just a delusion of my wishful thinking or my unthinking tradition?

No, not that either! It is because we inherit some delusions about God that I offer this theological exercise. Those notions that God is an all-powerful force of control — always or when “He” deems fit — may actually obstruct God’s work in the world and in each of us. And it might be that God’s work in the world depends upon our work — precisely because the mystery called “God” is not a projection of sovereign dominance. Not something, someone, that works by top-down control.

If no, no, no, and no — how, then?

How about — by creative collaboration with the creatures?

The coronavirus is not sent as a divine punishment. But something not unrelated: in this crisis, God may well be calling us all to account, holding us responsible for the wellbeing of our world. It doesn’t mean God willed this crisis to happen — or any of the horrors and holocausts of history. It means that nothing happens apart from God, because God isn’t something that exists

apart from the world: the world is a part of God, and God participates in each part of the world. God feels and suffers it all — with us. But God also calls to us to face the meaning of this punishing plague, to face the interdependence of us all — an interdependence that our civilization conceals from us, that this contagion reveals to us.

God did not create the pandemic in order to test any of us; God didn’t create the pandemic! But perhaps we are being tested. Not by the torments of a bully God, but by invitation to rise to the occasion. To find the courage and the care that will sustain us.

And as a species, are we not being tested — to see if we might come to terms with our creaturely connections to each member of our species and to all the other species of the planet? If we fail the test, it is not that God will punish us but rather the consequences of our collective actions. It is the consequences of our actions and inactions that will bring us down. If not to the virus, then to the catastrophic effects of global warming. Coming soon. But isn’t the ultimate biblical test always and only love? If we rise to the occasion, it is because we grow in that dauntless love that casts out fear.

God is not spreading the coronavirus to teach us a lesson. The disease is the effect of imbalances between culture and nature. In this case, maltreatment of wild animals and systemic disregard for environmental regulations triggered the outbreak. But maybe God is trying to teach a lesson in and through the pandemic. Doesn’t God mean — the one who is always calling, inviting, us each and all? Trying to teach, to inspire, in the midst of whatever is happening?

Why then doesn’t the divine voice break through better? So many who declare themselves God’s spokespersons teach anything but that love — anything but the biblical love of the least, of the stranger, of every other. How can they confine love to their own community, race, religion, kind? How do they manage to drown out God’s teaching? Perhaps, because it comes in such “a still, small voice.” Might this pandemic, demanding so much sudden solitude, give us a chance to enter that stillness?

No, God is not going to fix the world through this or any disaster. So how can we hope for repair of the world? Certainly not by waiting for God to do it for us. Not by ignoring the spirit of wisdom that whispers, that breathes, within each of us always. Each of us individually.

But each, only in our all-togetherness — human, animal, vegetable, mineral. That togetherness takes on new meanings now, in all the layers of planetary interdependence, deadly or benign, oppressive or just, at home or in public. Now, as we learn that social distance does not mean separation, right in the midst of catastrophe, that Spirit might turn you, turn me, turn us together — into catalysts of transformation.

We might not fix much that is already too badly broken. But in a new, dark hopefulness, might we become creative collaborators? Even with the Creator, the one who triggers the simplest matter and the subtlest minds to new creation?

This is not a story of top-down creating. This new creation comes as we cooperate with each other and with the divine source of every other. This is new creativity in and through whatever chaos besets us. The chaos might feel like the Apocalypse. But remember that apokalypsis, at least in the Bible, does not mean The End of the World. It means revelation: not a final closing down, but a great dis/closure.

In whatever chaos we experience, we recycle everything that we can: ecologically and socially, democratically and theologically. We do not wait for a dictatorial fix from on high. We enter into creative collaboration in a process we can neither predict nor control. For the process of the new creation remains mysterious. “The new heaven and earth” translate no longer as supernatural intervention or afterlife escape — but as the radical renewal of atmosphere and earth.

I hope each of the four no’s have morphed into an odd kind of yes. Into affirmations of something of what you — you wondering ones — already deeply sense, feel, consider. And begin to do.

Love,

Catherine

March 2020

catherineekeller.com

Listening to the Gospel of Christ over the Airs of Church Teachings

The following article below is the kind of discussion evangelicals always seem to be speaking among themselves using popular terms and concepts which have taken on a life of their own within their circles of theology. Doctrines which must be continually re-examined lest they go too far, or don't say enough, about Christianity's central biblical tenants and beliefs.

From a process perspective I would like to think of the atonement of Christ as a necessary and good result of the love of God for humanity bound by sin and needing release from its burden. Evangelicals would also agree to this concept but always seem to come at it from a "divine wrath" perspective with hell as the condition upon which every man or woman must confront.

True, evangelicals will admit to God's love as being a motivating factor for atonement, but I often suspect it never seems enough as they preach the judgment of God upon man for his/her sin condemning each to the fires of hell if not received. It seems God's wrath is evangelicalism's primary motivation for God's offer of redemption to mankind (I can still hear Billy Grahm's crusades echoing in my ears). At which point they begin splitting hairs as to whom God redeems or condemns (sheep vs. goats; or the tares (weeds) illustrations); whether His salvation is effectively for all or practically for some (the predestined or elect); whether salvation can truly be known or not (the Catholic angst); how efficacious salvation's effects might be (faith and works); and so on and so on and so on.

The doctrine of salvation is part of the many doctrinal labyrinths whose mazes spin this way and that having begun ages ago in the histories of the early church attempting to decipher salvation's effectiveness against persistent evil, oppression, persecution, and the death of God's people before corrupt and evil human agencies.

It's like looking at a cup of water and wondering whether the glass is half full or half empty. From an open-and-relational process perspective its a "half full kind of thing" which would more readily admit the need for atonement as an extension of God's love and fellowship back to all things created rather than to approach salvation from the wrath and judgment side of the divine (which pretty much is closed and determinative according to Calvinism's Reformed doctrines). And if this former, can then more easily speak to the need for sin to be resolved within the personage of Christ Jesus as evidenced in the Gospel narratives rather than attempt to drive it out of us by fear, threats and intimidation.

Christ moved among us not because of the hell we see or live through everyday but because of God's need to imbue wholeness within us who are unwhole, unwell, broken. Who need a Savior who can move us from our binds and burdens back into His fellowship, love, care, sustenance, and healing. Where heaven might be a reality now... not later. Because God and His love is a reality now. Who sees us as worthy of the hard work of redemption which may be started in our lives now rather than later. A reality whereby this sin-held world might be released one soul at a time from its evil. For love, not for wrath, Christ came into this world to redeem.

Having grown up in evangelic doctrine I find more satisfaction having stepped away from its "cup is half empty" perspectives back into the simplicities of Scripture's plain teachings. That God loves us and must reach out to us because of His great love. Not because we are doomed to hell and divine wrath because of our sin but because divine Love is the grace which explains and drives all of life.

I prefer to place the emphasis where it needs to be. This is not to discount sin which is plainly everywhere about. But for myself, a God who is all Judge and Jury seems less attractive a gospel than a God of all Grace and Majesty. And when it comes to how He deposed Himself within Himself on the Cross when taking on the sin of the world - it is enough for me to know that He came as a holy sacrifice willing to take our sin upon Himself without causing His Being to be any less than it was before He had undertaken this atoning act. Though rent by our sin He remained wholly in fellowship with Himself while remaining unrent ontologically. That as God, He could bear sin - and sin's penalty - and still be God in the act and the outcome. But I would expect God to be this kind of God, wouldn't you?

And so, while the article below can provide a provocative read it can also provide a narrowing of the human understanding of the Cross of Christ on Calvary's hill of Redemption when over-concentrating on the what, why, or how of its transaction. A divine transaction between a holy God reaching out into a broken world offering completeness, release and rest, from its daily burdens and hardships when continually confronted by the sin and evil present within its broken provide.

Lastly, and with a word of caution, I urge readers not to be drawn away into useless arguments of the Cross or of God but to always learn to discern where God would place the emphasis of His gospel - rather than how our own human hearts might hear or think of it. We've all listened to music stripped of its beats, tempos, or rhythms from the original score, making it into something else. But when this latter is brought into the music it can soar under the hand of the composer who had wrought it. This is as true of the bible, of God, of our lives, as with anything else. Sometimes we need to listen to the heart of God over our own hearts which would misread or misinterpret God's soaring music of the Good News of the Gospel which is  found in Christ Jesus our Savior and Risen Lord.

Peace,

R.E. Slater

April 4, 2018

* * * * * * * * * *

Is the Wrath of God Really Satisfying?

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2018/march-web-only/is-wrath-of-god-satisfying-good-friday-cross.html

God’s anger against sin is real on Good Friday, but he doesn’t “turn his face away” from the Cross.

THOMAS H. MCCALL| MARCH 29, 2018

“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” These words come from the lips of Jesus as he hangs on the cross (Matt. 27:46; Mark 15:34). They are powerful and haunting, and they are surely very important. But what do they mean—how are we to understand them?

For many who hold this view, the Trinity is somehow “broken” as the communion between the Father and the Son is ruptured in the darkness of that Friday afternoon. And this is said to be good news and the heart of the gospel because Jesus absorbs the wrath of God in taking the exact punishment we deserve. God is changed from wrath to mercy and can no longer justly punish those for whom Christ died.Here is one line of thinking that has recently become very popular in some circles. According to C. J. Mahaney, this cry from the lips of Jesus is the “scream of the damned.” He takes this line from R. C. Sproul who exclaims that when Jesus is crucified it is “as if a voice from heaven said, ‘Damn you, Jesus.’” This is because Jesus becomes the “virtual incarnation of evil” and even “the very embodiment of all that sin is.” Thus God abandons Jesus, turns his back on him, “curses him to the pit of hell” and “damns” him.

Such preaching is very powerful. But is it right? We should, of course, want to proclaim all that the Bible says about the work of Christ (at least as much as we are able), and we should be committed to affirming all that this teaching implies (what older theologians called “good and necessary” consequences). But we should also be very cautious about going beyond what is explicitly taught or implied— especially where the Christian tradition warns us. And we should strive to avoid anything that goes against biblical teaching and theological orthodoxy. So what are we to make of such teaching?

The Scream of the Damned?

We should be faithful to proclaim all that Scripture teaches, but we should be cautious about going beyond it. And here we must be blunt: Scripture nowhere says that Jesus’s cry of dereliction is “the scream of the damned.” Sproul says that “it is as if” there is a voice from heaven that says “Damn you, Jesus,” but in fact, there is no such voice. Jesus Christ is nowhere said in Scripture to be the “virtual incarnation of evil” or “the very embodiment of all that sin is.” To the contrary, he is the incarnation of goodness—he is holiness incarnate as truly human.

There is no biblical evidence that the Father-Son communion was somehow ruptured on that day. Nowhere is it written that the Father was angry with the Son. Nowhere can we read that God “curses him to the pit of hell.” Nowhere is it written that Jesus absorbs the wrath of God by taking the exact punishment that we deserve. In no passage is there any indication that God’s wrath is “infinitely intense” as it is poured out on Jesus. Such statements may pack a lot of rhetorical punch, but they go far beyond what Scripture teaches.

Of course, not all “going beyond” is going against, but sometimes the tradition warns us that “beyond” has become “against.” I have argued elsewhere that important patristic, medieval, and Reformation teaching denies these claims, but consider these statements (from theologians well known for their defense of a version of the doctrine of “penal substitution”). John Calvin says that “we do not admit that God was ever hostile to him, or angry (iratum) with him. For how could he be angry with his beloved Son, ‘in whom his soul delighted?’”

Similarly, Charles Hodge denies that the atoning work of Christ “consist[s] in an exact quid pro quo, so much for so much,” and he says that Christ “did not suffer either in kind or degree what sinners would have suffered.” It is tough to argue against Hodge here, for if sin deserves eternal separation from God and eternal conscious punishment (as traditional Reformed and much evangelical theology insists), then clearly this is not what Jesus receives.

One Triune God

Just as we must be cautious not to go beyond what Scripture says, so also we should not proclaim anything that goes against biblical teaching (or its “good and necessary” entailments). I have made the case elsewhere that while it is clear that the Father abandoned the Son to death on the cross, there is no good reason to think that this causes a rupture— or even a “strain” or “tension”—within the Triune life.

Not only is there no biblical text that says that the Father “turns his face away” from the Son, the passage that most plausibly speaks to the matter actually says that God did not do so. For if we take Psalm 22 to be important for our understanding of the cry of dereliction (as both Mark and Matthew clearly do), then we find these words: “he has not hidden his face from him but has listened to his cry for help” (Ps. 22:24). And the steady drumbeat of the apostolic preaching of the gospel has this consistent refrain: You killed him, but God raised him from the dead.

Finally, the “broken Trinity” and “God against God” views run aground on the doctrines of divine impassibility and simplicity as well as the doctrine of the Trinity. According to Christian orthodoxy, it not even a possibility that the Trinity was broken. If we know anything about the Trinity, we know that God is one God in three persons, and we know that God’s life is necessarily the life of holy love shared in the eternal communion of the Father, Son, and Spirit. To say that the Trinity is broken—even “temporarily”—is to imply that God does not exist.

The Just For the Unjust

We must not go beyond or against Scripture, but we should do our best to affirm all that Scripture says. So then, what can we say of the cry of dereliction? First, we should see that the biblical depiction of the human condition makes it clear—painfully and depressingly clear—that we are sinners. We are all sinners (Rom. 3:23), and we are helpless to rescue or repair or somehow save ourselves. We have the problem of what we’ve done and the wreckage we’ve caused; our sin and guilt and shame are undeniable and unshakable. But this isn’t all, for we have the further problem of who we are, what we’ve become, and what we will continue to do if we are not radically transformed. To use the language of older theology, we are both polluted and guilty.

Death is the consequence of sin (Rom. 6:23). And because of our sin, the wrath of God is being revealed (Rom. 1:18). Our days “pass away” under God’s wrath (Ps. 90:9). God’s wrath comes on those who are disobedient (Eph. 5:6; Col. 3:5–6). Indeed, we are “children of wrath” (Eph. 2:3, ESV).

Second, we should understand the work of Christ on our behalf within the storyline of Scripture: “Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3). His work addresses our condition— both the guilt and the pollution. Jesus Christ reverses the disobedience and unfaithfulness of Adam and Israel. Drawing on an ancient theological insight, we can say that in becoming human the divine Son of God “recapitulates” (or “re-heads”) humanity. The incarnation is itself redemptive, and it is his entire life, death, and resurrection (as well as his ascension and session—Jesus being seated at the right hand of the Father in heaven) that brings salvation to us.

In becoming fully human as Jesus Christ, the Son enters our brokenness and takes upon himself the “curse” caused by humanity’s sin. Thus the incarnate Christ unites himself to those under the wrath of God and suffers death. Christ’s work on our behalf is thus grounded in his incarnate person; it includes his teaching and example (1 Pet. 2:21) and culminates in his glorious defeat of sin and death (e.g., 1 Cor. 15:54–57; Heb. 2:14).

To say that Christ “died in accordance with the Scriptures” is to see his work within the broad biblical storyline that begins with Adam and focuses on Israel. More precisely, this includes seeing it in light of the Old Testament witness to both the wrath of God and the sacrifices offered for sin. The New Testament draws these connections, and it presents Jesus as the one who is both priest and sacrifice, both representative and substitute.

Jesus has come to ransom others (e.g., Mark 10:45). His suffering is not merely physical (Matt. 26:38), as his intimate union with humanity makes him deeply aware of their sin and its consequences. His death was “the righteous for the unrighteous” (1 Pet. 3:18). He came “in the likeness of sinful flesh” to be a “sin offering” and to “condemn sin in the flesh” (Rom. 8:3). He redeemed us from the curse of the law by “becoming a curse for us” in his death (Gal. 3:13). We are “saved from God’s wrath” by Christ (Rom. 5:9; 1 Thess. 1:10). The one who was sinless (e.g., Heb. 4:15) and who “had no sin” became “a sin offering” (not a sinner) on our behalf (2 Cor. 5:21). Jesus Christ, the sinless Son of God, “‘bore our sins’ in his body on the cross, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness” (1 Pet. 2:24; compare Isa. 53:5–6).

Note carefully the statement “so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness.” We cannot afford to miss the union and participation here—Christ lived with and for us and died for our sins so that we might die to our sins and live with and for him. Nor can we afford to miss the intention; it is so that we might be transformed, so that we might be truly righteous.

Christ was a sacrifice for us so that we might live as people who are holy (e.g., Eph. 5:2–21). His sacrifice was to “do away with sin” (Heb. 9:26). It was to cleanse us from sin—the “acts that lead to death” (Heb. 9:14; 10:10). Christ was a “sin offering” precisely so that we will “not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit” (Rom. 8:4)—so that “we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Cor. 5:21). As a result of Christ’s work, we can be “freed from our sins” by the one who loves us (Rev. 1:5).

We should be committed to proclaiming all that Scripture says about what Christ did for us. So we should not shrink from clarity about sin and its awful and horrific consequences. Indeed, we should be faithful to point out that “wrath remains” on all who reject the Son (John 3:36). At the same time, however, we are not at liberty to restrict our understanding of the intents, purposes, and breadth of Christ’s work.

Narrowing Christ’s work to the limited sense of taking the punishment for our sins can cause us to miss (much of) the point. Yes, Christ came to get us out of hell, but he also came to get hell out of us and to make us holy as we walk in communion with the Triune God. We should be faithful to proclaim that while Christ’s sacrificial work saves us from the wrath of God, it does so precisely as it radically transforms and changes us.

To say or imply that the Trinity is broken is to say or imply that God does not exist. This is exactly what we should seek to avoid saying on Good Friday and every other day. To the contrary, the holy love of the Triune life is the ground and wellspring of salvation: God “demonstrates his love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Rom 5:8). “God is love,” and “this is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world ... as an atoning sacrifice for our sins” (1 John 4:8–10). This we joyfully proclaim.

Thomas H. McCall is professor of biblical and systematic theology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and professorial fellow in analytic and exegetical theology at the University of St Andrews. His most recent book is An Invitation to Analytic Christian Theology (IVP Academic, 2015).

Lessons from the Book of Joel

Lessons from the Book of Joel

by R.E. Slater

June 30, 2016

Introduction

Over the past month or more I have been introducing myself and my readers to the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha through external abstracts and Phillip Long's commentaries. Throughout the entirety of Long's review of 1 Enoch has come the realization of how closely (but not without exaggeration) this book follows the apocalyptic literature within the Old Testament (sic, Genesis, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, perhaps Joel, etc). So if the supposition is true that the writer of 1 Enoch wrote after the establishment of the OT apocalyptic literature (sometime during, or after, the Maccabbean war in the Intertestamental period) than it may also be true that there is a remarkable similarity between 1 Enoch's summary writings (of creation, of mankind's (and the angel's) spiritual history, and of the end times to come) to the apocalyptic books later to be written and included by the church into the NT (parts of the Synoptics, Paul, Peter, Revelation, for example). As such, the storytelling author of 1 Enoch borrowed liberally from the OT literature even as the NT writers borrowed liberally both from the OT literature and outside sources such as the book of 1 Enoch.

But why?

Because not only was 1 Enoch a very popular book during the pre-NT era but its imagery was vivid enough to be encapsulated and moved forward by the perceptive NT writers who were part of a growing new movement known as the first century church. More simply, popular cultural ideas were synthesized and then utilized to explain the Jesus-event within a time of turbulent societal evolution. In essence, though 1 Enoch was not a canonized OT book it related the main presumptions of the Jewish people so very well in its mythologized and very creative storytelling as to provide fertile imagery for Jesus and His apostles to tell of God's salvation to man and the coming judgment upon all those who would refuse obedience and submission to the rule of God.

Now I have been spending not a little bit of time over the past several years in examining the kind of judgment God will execute upon a sinful world. Some of this has been mentioned before when dealing with the several topics of hell, salvation, or God's character. Nevertheless, the bible itself, along with much of the literature written by mankind since time immemorial has dealt with the consequences of living in sin, the retribution that comes with causing willful oppression upon others, or ignoring the wisdoms and moralities of common life observances by a society. As such, the burden of public opinion leans in the direction that if there is a judgment for sin it will always be executed - if not in this life than in the life to come. For myself, I would prefer this judgment to be as a result of living in sin and ignoring the commands of God to live a godly, righteous life. This, as opposed to accusing God of purposely casting sinners into a tortuous hell to pay restitution for an innumerable eternity. It seems more natural to place the burden upon the willfully sinful person than upon a holy, righteous God who warns us out of love that He is incapable to spare us from sin's experience/power/seal/death should we ignore His solution of salvation through His Son and the fellowship of His holy community found in His people.

Again, this is a personal opinion. I am not denying a judgment-to-come but what I am refusing to accept is placing the cause of this judgment solely upon God alone. Yes, in some sense God is seen as Judge and Ruler of this world and His creation. We have investigated what these subjects might mean under the topics of divine sovereignty: whether God's sovereignty is beneficial (vs. harming); partnering (vs. controlling); at all times loving and good (vs. a wrathful love and duplicious goodness); and so forth. These topics would fall under the headings of Arminianism vs. Calvinism which I'll mention in my next article in a short review of Roger Olson's book, Against Calvinism.

Now back to our conversation. What does this all mean? Why this long introduction to the book of Joel? Well, let's continue on....

The Book of Joel as Apocalyptic Literature of a Future Eschaton

How then do we interpret the Book of Joel? Does it predict a divine future full of wrath and judgement? Or does it depict a Jewish congregation's (if not the suffering world's) hope for divine retribution? If it is prophetic, than the work of God in this world has lost - all God's efforts have failed to redeem, to bring shalom into His creation, except by divine force. If prescriptive (sic, dogmatic/creedal), than Israel (or Judah, or its remaining exilic remnants) had given up in witnessing to their neighbors of their glorious God and are found waiting for the coming judgment of the "Day of the Lord" to consume mankind in a great flood of apocalyptic revenge. This position would likewise make of God's divine rule one that was ineffectual, incompetent, or both, so that again, God has lost His battle with evil and must end its reign by force rather than by the Cross. And if not by the Cross, then in essence, the Cross is made weak and loses too.

How then are these two approaches to the book of Joel any different in today's churches which wait for divine judgment while praying for its imminence? When Jesus and the Apostles used the book of Joel they likewise spoke of an end time apocalyptic as remarkable for its fearful warnings as for its pleas to repent. More significantly, in their pleas for repentance each servant of the Lord - whether Jesus or the apostles - became consumed with a missional fire which unleashed God's Holy Spirit power of redemption upon a sin-torn world. They were not found sitting around commiserating on the woes of the world and praying for God's imminent return. No. They were busy praying for God's mighty work of salvation to be declared amongst the habitations of mankind and that He would delay His return just long enough until every last sinner had escaped into the ark of atonement which Jesus had provided through His death and resurrection.

So then, let us ask again, "How are we to interpret the Book of Joel?" If whether prophetically or descriptively of God's people who are scattered across this wicked world as his surviving remnant then two things must stand out:

One, the church must repent of its wickedness and do what its founders did... take up a missional fire which preaches God's word and become active in humanitarian enterprise dispensing grace, hope and healing. And secondly, to not isolate itself from the world so that the church loses its saltiness. But rather, to become deeply involved in the world in ways that will redeem the world and bring to it God's peace and love, care and nurture. The question then is not whether God is coming again, whether He judges of not, or whether sin will have its day upon the rails of God's throne. Nay. The question is whether we as believers and followers of Christ have given up and are simply waiting for God's judgment to fall upon sinful mankind to prove us right and everyone else wrong.

But hadn't this attitude of exasperation and failure been demonstrated before?

If so, then by whom?

Remember the story of Jonah and the whale? Yup, you got it. Jonah was sent by God to the wicked Ninevehites (Assyria) with a message of fearful repentance. Though he was glad to announce God's coming destruction upon their heads he actually first ran away from God's call to duty by shipping in the opposite direction across the Mediterranean Sea. At the last, upon being belched up upon the shore Jonah resigned himself to God's call and attended to his duty which was fearfully received by the Ninevehites when beholding the bleached white oracle of God spitefully pronouncing judgment throughout the plush and luxurious city walls. The people, in response, repented immediately and fell for a time under God's sparing grace. But the story doesn't end there because the last half of Jonah's tale tells of his sulking petulance over having not witnessed God's ruinous judgment fall upon the detested Assyrians. So there he sat upon an unshaded hill for a long time as God ministered to his hard heart even to the point of providing an unwanted plant for shade so angry was Jonah with God's lack of judgment. And I'm afraid today's church is no less kind to this sinful world when despairing of God's rule and falling into a stupor of rage and anger when praying for God's coming wrath.

The point? Let not God's church do this wicked thing. But let His people relent of their posture of doom-and-gloom and disinvolvent in the world but seek to reconcile the world with God in every possible way. But not simply through gospel preaching but also through humanitarian ministries giving shape and meaning to the words of Jesus vouchsafing redemptive reconciliation. Why? Because as any good parent, coach, teacher, or director will tell you - you can preach to the troops all you want but until-and-unless you become personally involved with the lives of those you wish to affect words have very little power. Preach? Yes. But not to the exclusion of working. And if  wishing to preaching then first work. Let your good works preach a better sermon for you than mere words can. And what about our broken hearts yearning for God's rule and reign? Do you not suppose that in working with those we detest, or think of as sinful, or even as our enemy, we will discover how wrong we have been in our judgments? Relational ministries will do a world of good in re-righting the discriminating, or hateful, impulses of our own sinful hearts. The result? If Jesus Christ is in our ministries than the work of God through His Holy Spirit will bespeak release from sin's bondage for both parties; a greater freedom to live pleasingly for Christ; and the tasty fruits of hope, healing, and a new fellowship of community with those the church once considered condemnable. This is the peace of God which surpasses all understanding.

Thus the book of Joel is to be a motivator to Christian action regardless of its prophetic content or its dialectical meaning for a congregation stuck on the perpetual wheel of waiting for divine revenge. An action that cannot come unless God's people become active in this world by sharing God's love which offers hope and healing to all who seek Him. If we believe in the power of God, and in the Cross, and in the power of the Holy Spirit which accompanies God's stunning atonement than let us not weaken it by giving up. Or praying its early end. Or by isolating ourselves by discriminating dogmas and confessions. Or by resorting to heavy-handed force to "make" disbelievers submit. We must be a people who must love and accept and help all whom we might normally not love, accept, or help. Let us not do the work of the devil but learn to do the work of God. This is true revival meted upon judgment, repentance, and restoration.

Peace, 

R.E. Slater

NT Notes to the Book of Joel

The Book of Joel is referred or alluded to numerous times in the New Testament. A few notable (but not exhaustive) examples:

*The Apostle Peter quotes “the prophet Joel” directly in Acts 2:16-21.

*The Lord Jesus refers to Joel 2:10, “the sun and the moon [will] grow dark and the starts lose their brightness” before the Day of the Lord, when He describes the signs of the last days in Matthew 24:29.

*The Apostle Paul cites Joel 2:32, “Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved,” in Romans 10:13.

*The Apostle John alludes to Joel 2:10 when he describes events of the Tribulation in Revelation 8:12

The Apostle John alludes to the Book of Joel and language of the locust invasion in Revelation chapter 9.