|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Christus Victor, redux
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Christus Victor describes the understanding of the purpose of Christ's Resurrection, as seen by many in the early church. Later this understanding received competition from the concept of penal substitutionary atonement, particularly popular among the evangelicals AIUI.
I tend to find PSA to be an abhorrent doctrine myself, since it implies a totally non-loving God, but that is a tangent. Back this thread.
In Spiritual bondage to the powers of death , Slacktivist argues that quote:
[Progreesive Chritianity] articulates a powerful, liberating understanding of “spiritual bondage to the powers of death, Satan and sin.” The explanation and exploration of such spiritual bondage is far more serious and substantial than any corresponding effort I have seen in mainstream white evangelicalism.
and goes on to discuss how Progressive Christianity offers the view that Christus Victor is the necessary view of Christ's Resurrection's purpose. In particular, he moves beyond simple personal sin to the more complex view that includes quote:
More importantly, should we imagine it’s possible to have anything like an accurate appreciation for the meaning of “enslavement to dark spiritual powers” without understanding the role of powers and principalities like racism, patriarchy, class, privilege, violence, nationalism, colonialism, etc.? Does anyone really believe that conservative white, male, American evangelical theology offers an adequate understanding of any of those things?
in realising what sin is in the first place.
Comments, please, but please try to comment, not just to say "What tosh", which illustrates a problem you may have, not a problem with the thesis.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
An underlying problem is that Fred Clark doesn't get into the metaphysical grit, and look at what "atonement" even means. Is it some spiritual payment, or a metaphor? If it's a metaphor, then for what?
Personally, I like Christus Victor as a metaphor for people overcoming their evolutionary weaknesses via Christian experience and reflection. It goes beyond moral influence in its transformative effect: people aren't merely inspired by crucifixion and resurrection, but feel a personal awakening, that drives them to change themselves and the world around them.
My main problem with Clark's piece (beyond its hyper-focus on ethnicity, to the point where he condemns progressive Christianity itself for being "a tool of white privilege"!) it's that he presents a false choice between personal and structural change. People change institutions after they've first changed themselves.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
I like Christus victor. I think it corrects some of the problems in PSA, especially the way it pictures the nature of God as angry and vengeful.
It seems to me that all five of the primary metaphors for the atonement have a strong biblical witness behind them. To me that suggests precisely that-- that they are all images or metaphors that tell us something different about the nature of the atonement, just as all the different metaphors for God in the Bible tell us something different about God. And just like all the metaphors about God fall short in some way, so the metaphors for the atonement will all fall short in some way. The problem is not in any one image/metaphor, but rather in stressing one to the exclusion of the others, giving you a lop-sided view of the atonement.
It is interesting to me as well that the 5 images of the atonement all imagine the direction or force of the atonement (who it is directed at) in different ways:
• substitutionary and satisfaction directed Godward (i.e. in satisfying God's wrath)
• moral influence directed towards humanity (i.e. in helping us see God's love)
• ransom and Christus victor directed Satanward (i.e. in releasing us from the bondage to sin & death).
That last direction-- the "Satanward" direction of ransom and Christus victor-- fits nicely with Open Theism and it's emphasis on taking Satan & evil seriously as an explanation for suffering and injustice. It also fits well with Walter Wink's theology and "the myth of redemptive violence". For that reason I tend to emphasize those two images more than the other three, but recognize really we need all 5 to adequately explain/ imagine the profound cosmic shift that has happened in the atonement.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
Identifying what sin is certainly does have a massive influence. I was at a seminar recently on "nonviolent atonement" from an American anabaptist who. A friend of mine did a write-up of it here (it's worth noting that our evangelical church does emphasise Christus Victor). In this talk, sin was defined as an example of mimetic desire, following the line of thinking of Rene Girard and where Substitutionary Atonement is seen as a scapegoating exercise.
For my own part, I take a both/and approach. Substitutionary Atonement without Christus Victor gives a loveless God. But at the same time Christus Victor without Substitutionary Atonement gives a God who is unjust and who issues cheap grace. Two different sides of the same coin.
--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile
Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
But at the same time Christus Victor without Substitutionary Atonement gives a God who is unjust and who issues cheap grace.
I have a problem with Bonhoeffer's disparagement of "cheap" grace. It's not only cheap, it's free. I readily grant that we have a problem properly valuing what has been offered so extravagantly, but that is part of the beauty of moral influence -- the mechanism of moving us to value the gift is a real part of God's moving our stiff necks toward salvation. Most of the "theories" of atonement fail for me because they seem so wildly artificial, be they CV or any of the flavors of substitutionary atonement. Moral influence and Girardian thought have at least the virtue of ringing true to me. Most of the rest strike me as constructs to explain the inexplicable in terms of the unknowable. As always, YMMV.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
tclune: I have a problem with Bonhoeffer's disparagement of "cheap" grace. It's not only cheap, it's free.
Interestingly, in the Portuguese language the words 'grace' and 'for free' (something you don't have to pay for) are the same.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Jesus believed in both.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
My main problem with Clark's piece (beyond its hyper-focus on ethnicity, to the point where he condemns progressive Christianity itself for being "a tool of white privilege"!) it's that he presents a false choice between personal and structural change. People change institutions after they've first changed themselves.
But this implies that you haven't got around to the idea that passively accepting "things as they are" means accepting the sinful parts of "things as they are". Accepting slavery as "normal" doesn't allow for one to call out the sin of mistreating slaves, let alone the sin of actually owning another person made in the image of God.
The worship of violence, such as is promoted by the NRA in the US, or the mindless acceptance of "whatever the forces do must be alright because ... the soldiers/marines/pilots/whoever must be right. This does not allow for questioning the government/the other citizens on what they cause the forces to do. #Ferguson is a prime example of this: "kill a black man" just because, and then set up a huge overload of violence-oriented people with stupid amounts of weapons, rather than trying to work out what the problem is.
And whole churches are set up on the basis of keeping the poor, the blacks, the "other" out of the safe surroundings of white hierarchy. How can this not be sinful?
How can denying the simple humanity of women not be sinful? Women are not simply there to be raped and then blamed; women are not the possessions of men (even in the NT, this is so).
Sins can be sins of "not-realising". Sins aren't just something you decided to do wrong. As Jesus said about lust, the mere thought of subjugating other people is sinful.
BUT if people don't realise the sinfulness of, say, whites in #Ferguson, they won't act to do anything about it. What you suggest is simply a demand to ignore the sinfulness of many parts of society.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
I have a problem with Bonhoeffer's disparagement of "cheap" grace. It's not only cheap, it's free.
That strikes me as a misreading of Bonhoeffer, who seems very much aware of the point you're making:
quote:
“Such grace is costly because it calls us to follow, and it is grace because it calls us to follow Jesus Christ. It is costly because it costs a man his life, and it is grace because it gives a man the only true life. It is costly because it condemns sin, and grace because it justifies the sinner…
.. .Above all, it is costly because it cost God the life of his Son… Above all, it is grace because God did not reckon his Son too dear a price to pay for our life, but delivered him up for us.”
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
Substitutionary Atonement without Christus Victor gives a loveless God. But at the same time Christus Victor without Substitutionary Atonement gives a God who is unjust and who issues cheap grace.
I would agree that no single model works, and it's only when we take them together that we approach a full picture. I like cliffdwellers summary grouping the various models (I would say there are more than 5, depending on whether you consider related models as separate models or variations on a single model). To the quote above I would add things like, a moral influence providing an example of love is only of benefit if we're enabled to follow that example having shed the burden of guilt over past sins and defeated the current grasp of sin on our lives.
Although takign the models together does require us to understand the models (which, of course, includes their shortcomings). And, it does seem that PSA gets a particularly bad press and is prone to massive misunderstanding. We've already had it described as depicting an angry and vengeful God and in the quote above a loveless one. All of which I'd disagree with. PSA depicts a righteous God, a judge handing out right and fair penalties for the hurt our sins have caused to others. It depicts a holy God, in whose presence sin cannot exist. It also depicts a loving God providing a means by which the just penalty for our sins is paid, and by which we can be cleansed of sin and enter the presence of God.
But, just as receiving a fine for criminal activity (especially if someone else pays that fine!) does not change behaviour, PSA by itself is not enough. We also need a rehabilitation programme to teach us to live better (the moral influence of cliffdwellers post), and we need to have the influences that lead us astray defeated (which is where CV is very strong).
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
I'm sorry, but PSA does posit a vengeful and wrathful God, where else does "the wrath of God was satisfied" come from? And no, infinite punishment for finite offences is not "just" in any meaningful schema.
[ 16. October 2014, 10:09: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
I go for a mixture of Christus Victor and moral influence. The first covers the non personal, the second aids and abets the first but also includes the personal.
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
It seems to me that all five of the primary metaphors for the atonement have a strong biblical witness behind them.
Substitutionary atonement has a wide biblical witness, penal atonement has almost none.
Which is why it's so laughable that those that consider themselves the "most scripturally based" are often advocates of PSA but have very few biblical legs to stand on.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
There is another atonement theory that I quite like.
God sacrificed himself to apologise for all the suffering in the world.
Doesn't work for Jesus the man, but it does for Jesus the second person of the trinity.
That's the other thing about atonement theories and scripture: there are two competing threads in scripture that have to be held in tension : Jesus the man and Jesus the second person of the trinity. They are both there but difficult if not impossible to reconcile. Same as the doctrine of Chalcedon.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I'm sorry, but PSA does posit a vengeful and wrathful God, where else does "the wrath of God was satisfied" come from? And no, infinite punishment for finite offences is not "just" in any meaningful schema.
It comes from Anselm and his satisfaction theory.
I would posit that it is biblically sound to refer to God has having character qualities of being vengeful and wrathful, but only as part of many other characteristics including loving a just. See for example Psalm 103:8 "The Lord is merciful and gracious, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love."
As for vengeance, see Deuteronomy 32:35 "It is mine to avenge; I will repay."
To abandon those qualities is to strip God of part of It's character. It's akin to looking at a die and deciding you don't want the 1, so trying to remove that side. You won't be left with a fair, even and trustworthy die.
--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile
Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
[qb] I'm sorry, but PSA does posit a vengeful and wrathful God, where else does "the wrath of God was satisfied" come from? And no, infinite punishment for finite offences is not "just" in any meaningful schema.
It comes from Anselm and his satisfaction theory./QB]
No it doesn't. Anselm was writing in a feudal society where landlords wanted debts paid. He thought that Jesus paid our debt - but the debt was a life of obedience. Nothing to do with punishment.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
Horseman Bree, I've no issue with raising ethnicity in the context of sin, but Clark did it to excess, and did it simplistically, bracketing the word "white" to the word "evangelical," and sticking the track on repeat.
What about the African-American churches that nearly blocked equal marriage in Illinois? Or the evangelicals in Nigeria and Uganda who persecute the LGBT fellow citizens with murderous rigor? In the Anglican Communion, Africa is very much the center of power, and uses that power to attack gay rights across the globe.
It came over as a simplistic white man's burden spin on a complex issue. When expressing, say, vicarious guilt for slavery, progressives rarely mention that it was a trade driven by Africans selling their fellow Africans. At root, far too many progressives believe that racism is a white person's problem, rather than a human problem.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
But, in his context, the refusal of white evangelicals to admit to the (disguised) racism that is practised all around them is a consciously-sinful act.
Do you live in an area where the police would automatically shoot 20-something black person, and then respond to the unhappy crowd by hauling out roughly a full battalion's worth of weaponry? Are you saying there is no racism inherent in that situation? Are you saying that many of the whites did not support this act against the "uppity" blacks? Are you saying that it is entirely the fault of the blacks that they have been ghettoized, under-represented and generally marginalised by the conscious decisions of the whites?
And I note that the white evangelical presence during that storm was conspicuously unnoticeable, except when they asked for a return to "normal" (which implies continuing the sinful state of things).
And this story is repeated across the US, for blacks, for gays, for women.
Not to mention the conspicuous desire of largely-white parties to ensure that poor children are disadvantaged.
It may not be so obvious in your place, but ISTM that the riots in London last year might indicate that the situation there is not good. Try being gay when dealing with the hierarchy of the church, for instance, or try being even remotely favorable to gays in the evangelical group (Do I need to mention Steven Chalke?)
If you refuse to see the problem, you are part of the negation of Jesus' explicit statements.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
It may not be so obvious in your place, but ISTM that the riots in London last year might indicate that the situation there is not good.
Small point of fact: the riots were in 2011, not last year.
--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile
Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
Horseman Bree, the 2011 England riots were a criminal flashmob who used a police shooting as an excuse. I doubt white gangbangers in Manchester and Newcastle were inflamed by solidarity with an Afro-British man from London.
As for Ferguson, I won't comment on a shooting that's still under investigation, although there are definitely questions that need answering. Given the arson, looting and violence, I won't condemn the St. Louis cops out-of-hand for donning protective gear.
The evil doctrine of white supremacy has undoubtedly poisoned sections of American society, aided and abetted by southern baptists and other protestant groups (and fought, of course, by their fellow Christians). It's essential to consider it when considering sin, but it's something that needs to be slotted into a wider human picture.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I'm sorry, but PSA does posit a vengeful and wrathful God, where else does "the wrath of God was satisfied" come from?
Wrath is not the same as anger or vengeance. Certainly not as we experience those emotions. God doesn't lose it and lash out at those who have hurt him. At the same time He can't abide sin, he hates the effects of sin with a passion we cannot fathom. Wrath is that burning passion to eradicate sin.
quote:
And no, infinite punishment for finite offences is not "just" in any meaningful schema.
Infinite punishment is not a feature of PSA. Yes, some evangelicals believe in eternal punishment. But, PSA only requires the penalty to be beyond our ability to pay. If the prize is eternal life in the presence of God, the penalty is to not receive that - which could easily be non-existence.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I meant to say from the beginning 'aitch Bee, spot on, absolutely, amen.
We are blind to our privilege and the way it perverts Christ in us. We haven't the faintest idea how sinful we are. We thank God that we are not as IS. And we created them. WE. Christendom. CHRISTIANITY.
In my men's group Tuesday it was said that WE have a personal relationship with God through Christ and Muslims don't. Muslims who are doing 'what we were 500 years ago'.
How blind and naked and poor we are. How amnesic. In our helpless, ignorant, oblivious privilege.
Rwanda was 4% of that ago. One hundred thousand Christians slaughtered another million Christians in one hundred days.
Syrian and Iraqi Muslims have YEARS to go to achieve that.
And we're looking for a way to justify more war?
WE.
Christians.
God help us.
God FORGIVE us.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Byron: I'm sure you mean well with your attempts to avoid the issue. Having a black man killed by police in the US nearly every day is obviously not a problem to you. Plus I'm assuming that there is then no resentment built up in the affected community, because you have said that this could not be. There are only people who want to burn and loot, there are no other people who would just like to be treated as if they were human.
OK, OK, I get it. All girls who go out for the evening are demanding to be raped, and also want to be blamed by the police and "good" society. All blacks are muggers and looters, and there is no cause for that because you have said so. All immigrants are scum who should be sent "home", even if there is no "home" for many of them. All women are property and must suffer the curse of Eve. Good Christian thinking there.
Martin has managed to actually read some of what I (and Fred) have written. Please enjoy your wilfull ignorance.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Took a deep breath and moved away from this, and, Lo and behold! Here is the next chapter: Ta-Nehisi Coates on "The Old Jim Crow" and, of course, the present one. read it and weep. Blacks are automatically criminals because they are alive, and are treated as such by many in the US (and by fewer, but still many, in the UK)
Does this not hint at some version of a sinful attitude on the part of the oppressors? Do we have to sort out all the minor stuff like having once coveted a neighbour's ass, so that one can deal with the next trivial thing about actively hating at least 10% of all your neighbours, just because?
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
Horseman Bree, if we can discuss this without your posts putting words in my mouth, no problemo. If not, we're done here. Your call. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
It seems to me that all five of the primary metaphors for the atonement have a strong biblical witness behind them.
Substitutionary atonement has a wide biblical witness, penal atonement has almost none.
Yes, I meant the five metaphors I was referencing in my post.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
There is another atonement theory that I quite like.
God sacrificed himself to apologise for all the suffering in the world.
Doesn't work for Jesus the man, but it does for Jesus the second person of the trinity.
Isn't that already a component of Christus Victor to some degree?
"Apologizing" isn't a word I would use because in my Open Theist pov God is not responsible for suffering. But certainly in a more Augustinian or Calvinist theology God has a lot to answer for.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Well, try discussing instead of avoiding.
Breaking news: Outside agitators are the problem in #Ferguson.
The "real" political world sees blacks as criminals and moves in larger over-gunned forces.
How about seeing that the police are the "outside agitators" coming in from outside? Why are we fighting the whole civil rights thing 50 years later? How is it that the only church presence is on the black side? Where are the mediators coming from those oh-so-sin-free churches that everyone admires so much? Are they too busy hiding from the sins they commit?
As you can probably tell, I have a somewhat different view from the normal "don't rock the boat. We're so NICE that we can't help the sun shining out of our bottoms".
So long as all these groups - immigrants (in a country built on invasion and immigration and genocide!); women seen as the property of men; LGBTs being the target of violence; poverty-stricken children being forced to give up school lunches; etc. - continue to be oppressed by benign indifference or active hate-mongering, then the "Christian" presence in that country is a sham, just as it is under David Cameron's Tories and Steven Harper's Tories and Tony Abbott's wannabe Tories.
Just by the way, Harper is a member of one of those evangelical churches that preaches that the poor are that way because it is their own fault. This is certainly true in some cases, just as there are some Tories who actually realise what is happening. But at present more people are poor because we have worshipped the out-of-control money people and gotten rid of the jobs that used to keep people fed and housed, while attacking the support network that was put in place after WW2. And now even the churches are saying that the working poor caused this disaster.
And you say there is no social sin? No sin that matches simple personal ones like lying? Look up Gandhi's Seven Social Sins. He would have liked to be a Christian - except that the Christians he met were absolutely opposed to his colour. (which is my point exactly)
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Well, try discussing instead of avoiding.
Breaking news: Outside agitators are the problem in #Ferguson.
The "real" political world sees blacks as criminals and moves in larger over-gunned forces. [...]
A grand jury is still investigating the shooting. As I'm sure you know, grand jury proceedings are secret. To date, all we have are conflicting witness statements.
You seem to want me to ditch awkward things like evidence and the presumption of innocence, and jump to the conclusion that Michael Brown was murdered because he was African-American. Because ... well, why, exactly?
Given that he was a strong guy, caught on camera robbing a store minutes before he was shot, is it not at least possible that the shooting was justified? It may not have been, he may have been murdered because of his race, but I'll reserve judgment until the investigation's done.
If you want to talk sin, doesn't presuming a police officer's guilt qualify? Giving in to a peer pressure and condemning a man, well, there's certainly gospel precedent for being wary of that.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
It seems to me that all five of the primary metaphors for the atonement have a strong biblical witness behind them.
Substitutionary atonement has a wide biblical witness, penal atonement has almost none.
Yes, I meant the five metaphors I was referencing in my post.
Sorry. Missed that.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
TurquoiseTastic
Fish of a different color
# 8978
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
[qb] I'm sorry, but PSA does posit a vengeful and wrathful God, where else does "the wrath of God was satisfied" come from? And no, infinite punishment for finite offences is not "just" in any meaningful schema.
It comes from Anselm and his satisfaction theory./QB]
No it doesn't. Anselm was writing in a feudal society where landlords wanted debts paid. He thought that Jesus paid our debt - but the debt was a life of obedience. Nothing to do with punishment.
Uh... Anselm arguably says that it's not to do with punishing Jesus, but it's certainly, in his eyes, about releasing us from our just punishment. The repayment takes the form of Jesus's obedient life - and most especially death.
Now you could argue that that isn't PSA, exactly. But it probably preserves most of the things that people don't like about PSA.
Posts: 1092 | From: Hants., UK | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
God is fully responsible for suffering, cliffdweller, it is contingent on creation.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
God is fully responsible for suffering, cliffdweller, it is contingent on creation.
You are begging the question. As I said, yes, in a Calvinist/Augustinian theological paradigm (which you seem to be assuming), God is responsible for suffering. But that is not the case in an Open or Process paradigm-- which was my point. I understand, of course, that many/most Christians do not assume that paradigm.
[ 17. October 2014, 14:27: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
God is fully responsible for suffering, cliffdweller, it is contingent on creation.
I'm sure that this can be seen as an inescapable fact. God obviously created the world in such a way that suffering was always a possibility.
I don't think that this makes God responsible for suffering. It presupposes that there was another way that God could have created the universe that would both remove the possibility of suffering and also be on the whole a "better" system.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
God is fully responsible for suffering, cliffdweller, it is contingent on creation.
I'm sure that this can be seen as an inescapable fact. God obviously created the world in such a way that suffering was always a possibility.
I don't think that this makes God responsible for suffering. It presupposes that there was another way that God could have created the universe that would both remove the possibility of suffering and also be on the whole a "better" system.
I would agree with Martin that if God created the world in which suffering is inevitable-- the world as we see it today-- that makes God responsible for suffering. My point was that that presupposes a Aristolian/Calvinist paradigm. In an Open paradigm the world as we see it today-- with the inevitability of suffering-- is not the world as God intended it to be, or the world as it will one day be in the New Creation.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
It presupposes the opposite. How do you read that in to it Freddy?
Creation and suffering are a perichoresis.
[ 18. October 2014, 08:08: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
What do mean by "Aristolian/Calvinist paradigm" cliffdweller?
Ach-- typo-- for "Aristolian" I meant Augustinian (although it might have been a freudian slip, since Open Theism accuses Augustinian theology of being overly influenced by Greek philosophy).
Basically I mean the most common Christian conceptions of the God's Sovereignty as equating absolute control, particularly when it comes to creation. Whereas Open and Process theologies create a paradigm where other contingent forces have more of an influence over what happens in the world, including the actual "natural order".
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
It presupposes the opposite. How do you read that in to it Freddy?
I assume this was directed to me, not to Freddy, since it follows my statement about what you are assuming?
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Creation and suffering are a perichoresis.
OK, probably not an Augustinian or Calvinist paradigm per se. But still a paradigm that suggests that creation as we see it today (including suffering obviously) is the world as it was intended to be (thus still problematic from a theodicy pov). Whereas the (minority view) paradigm I'm suggesting does not.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
A grand jury is still investigating the shooting. As I'm sure you know, grand jury proceedings are secret. To date, all we have are conflicting witness statements.
You seem to want me to ditch awkward things like evidence and the presumption of innocence, and jump to the conclusion that Michael Brown was murdered because he was African-American. Because ... well, why, exactly?
There's a presumption of innocence when it comes to the State sending people to prison. For that matter, there ought to be a presumption of innocence when it comes to shooting a man in the street. When it comes to expressing opinions on the internet, the evidential requirements are weaker and one can go with the balance of probabilities.
Young black men get shot by the police a lot more often than young white men. It seems reasonable to suppose that it's not entirely the fault of the young black men.
As I said, presuming the innocence of the police here requires casting aspersions on the innocence of the young black men who've been shot. The reason we presume innocence is to protect citizens from the coercive arm of the state; and that includes the police.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
[...] Young black men get shot by the police a lot more often than young white men. It seems reasonable to suppose that it's not entirely the fault of the young black men. [...]
Each use of deadly force is unique, and can't be slotted neatly into a narrative of racism. I have no doubt that racial bias influences some officers, but I don't know its extent.
We do know that young African-American men are disproportionately reflected in the homicide stats, as both perpetrators and victims, so it's far from impossible that the majority of police shootings are justifiable.
Centuries of brutalisation from white supremacy, segregation and, yes, slavery are clearly behind this legacy of crime and deprivation, but it's a hideously complex injustice to heal, something not helped by assuming that most white cops are racist.
You're right about burdens of proof not applying, but as the underlying reasons for having it in court apply across the board, I try to do the same.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Starting again cliffdweller: God is responsible for all suffering while causing none of it directly or immediately. It's contingent on creation. You cannot have creation without suffering.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Starting again cliffdweller: God is responsible for all suffering while causing none of it directly or immediately. It's contingent on creation. You cannot have creation without suffering.
And again, that is true in many/most paradigms. It is not true in an Open or Process paradigm. Suffering is inherent to this world as we now know it to be. Open theists do not believe it to be inherent to the world as God intended it to be or as it will be in the new heaven & earth. Arguably, I believe that to be consistent with what we see in the biblical worldview as well.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
God has no intent but to lift us up. Transcend us. It's non-sense to suggest that creation turned out other to God's intent. There was, is no other way. Obviously. Anything else is dualism.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
God has no intent but to lift us up. Transcend us. It's non-sense to suggest that creation turned out other to God's intent. There was, is no other way. Obviously. Anything else is dualism.
Not dualism but Open Theism which is different than the classical view you're espousing (Boyd calls the particular understanding of reality as corrupted by forces other than God "warfare theology", I forget what Walter Wink calls it). fwiw, the classical view with it's inherent problems w/ theodicy and the nature of time seem like "nonsense" to us (Open Theists). And, again, I would argue that the Bible demonstrates precisely this "dualism".
I don't have any problem with you advocating a classical paradigm-- again, it's the predominant form of Christianity. I just have a problem with the "just so" way you are presenting it. There is a significant, scholarly, dissenting pov-- albeit a minority pov.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Then we are separated by a common language. By disposition. As usual on SOF. Invoking anything that can immediately or even gradually derail God's 'original intent', whatever that was, is pure dualism. When did this happen in your story of the universe and how?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
[...] Young black men get shot by the police a lot more often than young white men. It seems reasonable to suppose that it's not entirely the fault of the young black men. [...]
Each use of deadly force is unique, and can't be slotted neatly into a narrative of racism. I have no doubt that racial bias influences some officers, but I don't know its extent.
We do know that young African-American men are disproportionately reflected in the homicide stats, as both perpetrators and victims, so it's far from impossible that the majority of police shootings are justifiable.
Centuries of brutalisation from white supremacy, segregation and, yes, slavery are clearly behind this legacy of crime and deprivation, but it's a hideously complex injustice to heal, something not helped by assuming that most white cops are racist.
You're right about burdens of proof not applying, but as the underlying reasons for having it in court apply across the board, I try to do the same.
Interesting discussion perhaps, but what on earth has this got to do with Christus Victor and understandings of atonement?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
A grand jury is still investigating the shooting. As I'm sure you know, grand jury proceedings are secret. To date, all we have are conflicting witness statements.
You seem to want me to ditch awkward things like evidence and the presumption of innocence, and jump to the conclusion that Michael Brown was murdered because he was African-American. Because ... well, why, exactly?
Given that he was a strong guy, caught on camera robbing a store minutes before he was shot, is it not at least possible that the shooting was justified? It may not have been, he may have been murdered because of his race, but I'll reserve judgment until the investigation's done.
If you want to talk sin, doesn't presuming a police officer's guilt qualify? Giving in to a peer pressure and condemning a man, well, there's certainly gospel precedent for being wary of that. [/QB]
I think you're missing my point. The shooting of Michael Brown is an isolated event, in which "he said, she said" is about all that is available, given the death of one side of the argument.
BUT the general population seems to expect that the police should be armed with all sorts of (inappropriate) army gear, made available cheaply in a militarized nation, and that those police should come in to a community and terrorise it with those weapons until the "uppity" folk get back in their cages. The police (just about all white) certainly believe that containment and "shock and awe" are useful tools and that no communication with the community is to be allowed.
In most First World countries, police are expected to answer for problems that arise. In this case, the shooter wasn't even identified publicly until after the publicity s**t hit the fan. And it was often remarked that the police did NOT wear identifying badges while committing this suppression, another "no-no" in civilized countries.
Do you not see a problem with this?
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Then we are separated by a common language. By disposition. As usual on SOF. Invoking anything that can immediately or even gradually derail God's 'original intent', whatever that was, is pure dualism. When did this happen in your story of the universe and how?
Dualism posits both forces (evil/good; God/Satan) as equal. independent and eternal. and therefore the battle is eternal and w/o hope. Open does not (process might-- I'll let others more knowledgable speak for their position). Open theism IMHO and arguably reflects the biblical worldview of an world that is significantly impacted by evil forces opposed to God; but also of a future hope for the ultimate defeat of those purposes and a world "set right."
Boyd places the "corruption of nature" at the second nanosecond of creation (Big Bang/ evolution). ymmv.
Circling round to the OP, for obvious reasons, then, Open and Process theologians tend to favor the "Satanward" images of the atonement-- ransom and Christus victor.
[ 19. October 2014, 14:01: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
My milage is zero. I'm not even walking to the car.
Boyd is wrong. Which is a shame.
Like Progressive Christians homeopathically diluting Jesus.
Even as metaphor it doesn't work. It's heterodox even to the bronze age narrative.
The only way I can make it work, which I'm used to doing now with all pious expressions, no matter how 'distinctive', is that in the instant of creation the inexorable countdown to suffering began.
No evil agent necessary.
If there is a real spirit world inhabited with sapient spirits some of whom went to the bad, as the pre-resurrection Jesus recalled, even the bronze age narrative doesn't retrospectively apply their fall to the beginning. On the contrary they sang for joy.
What am I missing? What was God's intent for creation that was thwarted? What would creation have been like if it hadn't been?
Where did the evil come from 'pre' creation? Infinite regress anyone? What am I missing?
Boyd CANNOT mean evil in any but a strongly figurative sense therefore. He is a clever chap after all.
No?
Even so, how did creation thwart God?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
I think you're missing my point. The shooting of Michael Brown is an isolated event, in which "he said, she said" is about all that is available, given the death of one side of the argument.
BUT the general population seems to expect that the police should be armed with all sorts of (inappropriate) army gear, made available cheaply in a militarized nation, and that those police should come in to a community and terrorise it with those weapons until the "uppity" folk get back in their cages. The police (just about all white) certainly believe that containment and "shock and awe" are useful tools and that no communication with the community is to be allowed.
In most First World countries, police are expected to answer for problems that arise. In this case, the shooter wasn't even identified publicly until after the publicity s**t hit the fan. And it was often remarked that the police did NOT wear identifying badges while committing this suppression, another "no-no" in civilized countries.
Do you not see a problem with this?
All this inflammatory talk of police oppressing "uppity" African-American citizens is so vague that it's impossible to counter, which I suspect is the purpose behind the generalizations. If my suspicion's wrong, please consider the problem.
You raise valid issues like ID and representation, but your assumption of racist motive casts far more heat than light. Are qualified African-Americans in Ferguson even applying to the PD, for example. Is the protective gear justified by the threat posed by rioting? And so on.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
