|
Building Bridges - 04Gimme that old time religion ...!The previous message was written to make the point that the Bible was a collection of stories, laws, historic tales, hymns and assorted documents which had been skillfully woven together to make a coherent whole. It was shown that the Hebrew Scriptures, as a body of works, are thought to have seen first light during the Babylonian exile, while the so-called New Testament started with the Letters of Paul, to which the 4 Gospels, the book of Revelation and assorted other letters were added at a later date. The message ended with the promise that, since the advance of contemporary scholarship the Bible can not be read literally, this presentation would focus on the *meaning* of the message of the Bible. What was the original meaning of the Bible, and why the necessity of reviewing that meaning at this time? My thesis is that the membership at large ought to be informed that the traditional biblical message, as currently presented, is not the only legitimate one by any stretch of the imagination. There is an alternate way of interpreting the meaning of the Bible. "Project 2000" was originated to invite all Christians to take a critical look at the message of the Bible and its interpretation and to contemplate switching to a alternate explanation of the biblical message. What *was* the purpose of the Bible and its message? The development of same would make a fascinating story. I imagine it happening this way. Over a long period of time people wrote the saga of their leaders and kings, and I can well imagine that the recording took off with the reign of David and his son Solomon (app. 1000 BC) as that was a time of conquest and prosperity. Another flurry of activity takes place after the death of Solomon and the split of Israel into two kingdoms, Israel and Judah. It doesn't take much to imagine that both camps wrote about the event from their point of view and put their version in the best possible light. Next, the Northern Kingdom was overrun. Although the peoples of the Northern and Southern kingdoms were closely related, they were fierce rivals in many ways. Even so, It is easy to see that the refugees from the North streamed South when the Northern kingdom fell to the Assyrians in 722 BC. While on the run, we know from our newscasts that refugees bring with them their most valuable possessions including their most sacred things, their writings and religious paraphernalia. A couple of hundred years later Judah was overrun also and the elite was carted off to Babylon. The future looked bleak and, given the fate of the 10 Northern tribes, there didn't seem too be much hope for a return to their homeland. It was under those difficult circumstances that the decision was made not to give in to despair. The leadership was faced with a crucial question. Either their God was the most powerful God in creation or he was not. If he wasn't, there was nothing they could do about it and their believe in him had been in vain. If, on the other hand, he was whom they believed he was, they would continue in their worship as they always had in the certainty that their God would ultimately prevail. To do so however, they needed a story in order to teach the generations their traditions. Not only that, they needed rules and regulations to replace their lost ones. The most important and difficult to deal with had to do with their practice of blood sacrifices. While they lived in and around Jerusalem, they had the temple to bring their offerings. The temple was destroyed, and in Babylon they didn't have a replacement. What to do?! The upshot was that they put together a book of hope for the future, and decided that God's care and grace did apparently not depend on blood sacrifices. Having hit on that explanation, the story of their relationship with God was recorded to reflect their new understanding. That new understanding was subsequently written down, and passed on to the next generations. This is a very skinny version of how and why the Bible was put together. The main thing was that its message was one of hope and trust in their God. For a full explanation of the events just mentioned, read "Who wrote the Bible" by Richard Elliot Friedman (a noted Jewish scholar) or "Reading the Old Testament" by Lawrence Boadt, (a Roman Catholic scholar). This brings us to the manner in
which the Bible and its meaning has been delivered to succeeding generations.
Fast forward a couple of thousand years! That takes us to the last few centuries
of our civilization. What is the traditional message, and
what conclusions have been drawn from that message? Remembering that this is
supposed to be a grassroots effort, I ask your indulgence if I tell my story.
Having been brought up in a family in which the day started with Dad telling
us a Bible story, the Bible was read after every lunch and supper, and having
had a lifelong relationship with the "Good News" through participation
in the normal Christian activities (attending church twice weekly, weekly catechism
class, summer retreats and the like), I would like to share my story with
you. In the beginning, "God created, ..." that is how it started. And God saw, and it was Good! i.e. no flies in the ointment. Then the Devil appeared in the form of a snake and enticed Eve to eat the fruit of a tree which God had placed conspicuously in the centre of Paradise, but which He had specifically denied Adam and Eve access to. The penalty God attached to the act of eating from that particular tree was that humanity (literally two persons at that time) would have their eyes opened, would become acquainted with death and would die themselves. As a consequence, they would forfeit access to their home, Paradise, and would no longer live in harmony with God. Instead, their relationship with God would be one of discord, unless somebody could come up with a suitable restitution. The Christian message, as I remember it, is that nobody of the human race could conceivably come up with sufficient ransom to restore the relationship with God to its original luster. It follows that it would have been the end of the line for humanity were it not for the love, grace and compassion of God. What did God do to demonstrate His
love, grace and compassion? Rather than give up on the human race, God looked
for a way out of the quandary. God's final solution was encapsulated in the
following scenario. Without an appropriate ransom God could not re-establish His
relationship with humanity while maintaining His integrity. Since no one of the
human race could raise the kind of ransom God required, God send His own beloved
Son to pay the price for our sins. That price was death on a cross. Ever since
then Christians have maintained that true Christians are forgiven as Jesus had
paid the penalty. What is the bottom line for
the true Christian? It is a sincere belief that Jesus died on the cross to pay
for his/her sins and that s/he confesses Jesus to be Lord, master and
saviour. Are my memories correct, are they way off the mark or am I wrong in the conclusion I have arrived at? Why not judge for yourself and read (among other sources) the booklet written by one Rev W. Brian Gee, called "Unlock your Bible" (ISBN 0-919599-43-5). In it he says (pages 85 - > ):
Rev Gee goes on to make the point that the required penalty could not be paid from with in the human family, as it is not within us to come up with that kind of price. He goes on to say:
The result, according to Rev Gee, was that God's justice remained strong and God's creation remained dependable. The result was that, whereas there had been nothing but "bad news", now there was "good news". It was through the death of Jesus on the cross that God paid the penalty for our crime. Gee concludes that: This is the real breakthrough: a brand new assessment of what makes God's creation really work. This was the unique message that Christians brought to the world. Is there any further evidence backing my memories and interpretation up? I would answer that with one word, plenty. Listen to the message as it is being propagated by any number of TVangelists on Vision TV. The message of the payment for our sins is paramount. Peruse the pronunciations on this subject as we find them in "Presbyterian Creeds, A guide to the book of confessions" (Jack Rodgers; p111 ), "Wilmington's Guide to the Bible" (Dr H. L. Willmington), and "A Handbook of Theological Terms" (Van A. Harvey) where we read under "Atonement":
Continue by reading the comments from many of the ministers on the two forums, United Online and Osiem. And
finally, study the wording of the following articles: Note: Propitiation:
The idea of propitiation lies at the heart of one theory of the ATONEMENT that
has been prominent in Latin Christianity as well as in PROT. ORTHODOXY. This
theory holds that the Divine wrath against Sin requires a satisfactory penalty,
because God's justice would be compromised were he simply to forgive sin without
exacting punishment. Since men themselves are unable to pay the penalty, God
makes it possible through Jesus Christ, who, by virtue of his two natures in one
person, is able to accomplish a work of infinite value. He makes P. for man's
sin. We further read in: Article X and Xl that it is only by way of our belief in the atoning work of Jesus Christ that we will be found acceptable in the eyes of God and will be restored as legitimate children of God. Note: Atonement:
see above Apart from the logical argument, these are the lessons I have been endowed with. This is the story I remember having been told about the interaction between God and Jesus. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, the traditional Christian message has as foundation the concept of substitutionary atonement. As a final piece of supporting evidence, allow me to refer you to a news item in Time (June 26 '00) about the large Southern Baptists and what they believe. Unquestionably, they too subscribe to the concept of substitutionary atonement. The longer I wrestled with this scenario, the stronger my conviction became that this is an inaccurate depiction of the way in which God actually works in creation. The longer I contemplated Jesus' description of God as a loving father and compared that to what I read in the Bible, the more grotesque the picture of an angry fault finding God became. The "Master of the Universe" gradually but steadily unfolded as a gracious forgiving entity which was always ready to sustain, forgive and to nurture back to health. Having lived most of my life with the image of a deity who requires a blood sacrifice in order to be able to forgive, the problem I subsequently encountered was the difficulty of formulating an alternate scenario that remains grounded in the Bible. i.e. suddenly I found myself challenged to re-image the Bible and help shift a paradigm. Awesome! That attempt will be made next edition! In the meantime, give some thought to the difference between what I presented you with and what you read in the Articles of Faith I quoted. Shalom, Peter.
|
.