Everyone remember Lindsay these next three weeks: she left for Africa this morning. For two weeks she’ll be doing work in Kenya and the last week she’ll be doing work in Rwanda. We’re looking forward to updates!

::Kat

In an eco-friendly coincidence, I came across this chapter in Wendell Berry’s Sex, Economy, Freedom and Community (1992) just hours after posting my last green comment. Entitled “Christianity and the Survival of Creation,” Berry devotes his chapter to how and why Christianity has fallen short on caring for our world.  If you’re interested, please find the book (I know it’s in the Baylor Library for all you blogger-bears). For now, I’ll leave you with this:

We will discover that for these reasons our destruction of nature is not just bad stewardship, or stupid economics, or a betrayal of family responsibilty; it is the most horrid blasphemy. It is flinging God’s gifts into His face, as if they were of no worth beyond that assigned to them by our destruction of them. To Dante, ”despising Nature and her goodness” was a violence against God.  We have no entitlement from the Bible to exterminate or permantently destroy or hold in contempt anything on the earth or in the heavens above it or in the waters beneath it.  We have the right to use the gifts of nature but not to ruin or waste them. We have the right to use what we need but no more… 

The Bible leaves no doubt at all about the sanctity of the act of world-making, or of the world that was made, or of creaturely or bodily life in this world.  We are holy creatures living among other holy creatures in a world that is holy.  Some people know this, and some do not. Nobody, of course, knows this all the time. But what keeps it from being far better known than it is? Why is it apparently unknown to millions of professed students of the Bible? How can modern Christianity have so solemnly folded its hands while so much of the work of God was and is being destroyed?

There is so much goodness in this chapter, I don’t know where to start. I think I’m just going to go home and snuggle with my cat. That’s loving on creation, right?

 ::Kat

It took me awhile to get here, but as every student knows, late April-early May is not the best time for any student. Early we summarized the most popular views on the crucifixion, the Ransom and Satisfaction theories. I was recently introduced to two appealing alternatives: the Influence and Participation theories.

The Influence theory suggests that, again, humankind is seperated from God by sin. Alone, we can’t get around that sin and into the prescence of God.  God, wishing for communion, commissions Christ to live among us, teach us, and ultimately demonstrate the most profound exercise of love. These actions, when accepted and recognized as coming from God, engage us in a new mind, an enlightened spirtual state, and we are able to accpet God’s mercy and leave sin behind.  This theory is different from the Ransom and Satisfaction theories in that nothing changes about God’s nature, our nature, or theologically when Christ dies.  The cruxifixion is just one in a series of revleations about the Divine-Human relationship. For me, it also solves some of the troubling elements of the previous theories, most notably it explains the righteousness of the Old Testament fathers, and how they participated in communion with God without knowing Christ’s sacrifice. Also, God does not have to answer to anything outside of himself; he isn’t bound by some sort of celestial law of balance.  The Influence theory values both God’s voluntary action to reach out to humanity and our decision to reach back.  While actions are predestined by divine love, they are not demanded of the universe (the universe that divine intent ordered, interestingly enough).

I find that the Participation theory (the one posited by Rev. John) does not function as a solitary approach, but as a compliment to the Influence theory, I think it makes for a powerful perspective. The Participation theory suggests that Christ died so that he could participate in our suffering, proving himself to be a caring, empathetic, and sympathetic God as well as a just one.  Dr. Hanks had a helpful, if tragic, illustration for this idea.  He told the story of a pastor whose parishoner lost a young child.  The little girl had suddenly run into the street and been hit by a car: it wasn’t the little girl’s fault, it wasn’t the driver’s fault, it was just something that happened and could not be undone.  At the funeral, the pastor appraoched the obvioulsy distressed father who said, “Pastor, please don’t try to tell me that this was God’s will and it will all work out to be okay. I’ve heard it enough today.” The pastor replied, simply, “Why would I say that? I don’t know how this is going to work out. All I know is that God lost a little girl today too.” That, understandably, was infinitely more comforting.  One of the most appealing aspects of an incarnate God is that he intimately knows the difficulties of daily life: of disappointment, love, and loss.  Rev. John suggests that the cruxifixion in an extension of this; Christ knows every aspect of humanity — including brutality and death.  Most importently, he engaged willingly in extreme suffering to lessen the gap between us and him, uniting us in the most frightening unknown.  Violence is the most prolific and universal characterizations of humanity’s falleness, and Christ submited himself to it — for no other reason than relationship.  Like I said, I don’t think I could hold this theory alone, but stand it next to the Influence theory, and you have the makings of a helpful, consistent, enlightening understanding of Christ’s sacrifice.

 These posts have obviously been the barest bones of thought.  There is a lot more to be said, though I’m probably not the best one to say it. I’m just finding myself asking questions and I’m blessed enough to be surrounded by people with insight. God isn’t intimidated by our questions and doubt — I think he is proved more relevant in the face of them.  I’d love to hear any additional comments.

::Kat

I’ve been wrestling with how green I’m willing to go.  Obviously, the way we care for our world and environment should be an extension of our faith. With the energy crisis and global warming and the fact that I really like ziploc bags and steak all knocking around in my head, it can be difficult to get perspecitive. However, I’m spending some time reflecting on my habits and trying to get the global picture.  I don’t know where all this thought is going to take me, but hopefully it will be closer to where a responsible citizen/someone who likes trees and puppies should be. I added a link in the blogroll for anyone interested in taking this little journey with me. It’s the link “TreeHugger.” In case there was any confusion.

::Kat

It astounds me that people like this even exist.

If we at all wonder why people are skeptical of Christianity and those who abuse the name of God … well, all you need to do is read the article linked above and I think you’ll understand.

You may have noticed that Kat has been the only one posting lately. This is not without good cause on my part.

I’ve been working on a paper titled, “Again It Goes Unnoticed: Exploring the Link Between Wartime Rape and Sex Trafficking in Kosovo and Sudan” for my International Human Rights Class. Not only is this paper a beast to write for various reasons, but I’m also presenting it at the Human Trafficking Conference held at South Texas College. In about 18 hours. Oy.

Once I’ve presented it and have it completed, I’ll post it on this blog for you to see. The information in it is devastating, but so crucial to know if we’re ever going to end these gross violations against human and women’s rights.

So wish me luck! I’m off to be a pretend academic in McAllen.

::Lindsay

I don’t think any of this gives away anything that you can’t figure out from the promotional posters. 

This is just a general notice that I have seen Grindhouse and a review is coming soon. I guess Tarantino’s bit, “Death Proof,” could be viewed as female empowerment. Really gross but vivid female empowerment. Just throwing that out there.

Well, now that I think about it, Rodriguez’s “Planet Terror” has a go-go dancer who: A) leads the way to a new civilization and B) has a machine gun leg. Awesome.

Also, the film is a healthy 3.5 hours long. Backsides, beware.

::Kat

Unlike a lot of Christians (some who, for the record, I love and respect very much) I am not under the impression that there is an unholy trinity threatening Christians today: abortion, post-modernity, and homosexuality.  I don’t have the time or the energy to explain my position on all three, but I thought this letter takes a interesting approach to homosexuality. I try to avoid irony when dealing with an issue that can inspire passionate, often unfortunately violent, reactions.  I just don’t like the nastiness it can foster. However, in the case the author raises what I think are valid points. Also, I didn’t write it, so I’m not taking fall. Helloooo, Loophole, my dear friend. Plus, the word “smite” plays a prominate role. At this rate, it’d be a crime not to share.

I should note that versions of this letter have been in circulation for years – online, in newspapers, and featured in a 2004 episode of The West Wing. The letter’s infamy can be followed here. I don’t think this fuzziness has any effect on the content, though you’re welcome to disagree.

::Kat

On one of her broadcasts, Dr. Laura Schlessinger dismissed homosexuality as an abomination to God, citing Leviticus 18:22.  A listener purportedly responded with the following:

Dear Dr. Schlessinger:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. … End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God’s Law and how to follow them.

1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord – Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness – Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. The passage clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination – Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this? Are there ‘degrees’ of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? – Lev.24:10-16. Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.

Your adoring fan.

For the first time in my life, I’m actually achieving that ever elusive follow-through.

That’s right, we’ve succesfully landed on part two of reflections on the theological significance of the crucifixion – something I didn’t even know I had options about until last week.

I was able to participate in a mentally stimulating conversation about the crucifixion at, of all places, Sunday school. No one was more shocked than I to be having challenging, thought-provoking, intellectual conversation at Sunday school, but I forgot I was in a class led by Dr. Tom Hanks. Not that Tom Hanks, another one. We came to the conclusion that there are four ways to view to crucifixion: the Ransom Theory, the Satisfaction Theory, the Influence Theory, and the Participation Theory.  The first three theories we discussed were borrowed from a sermon given by Dr. Hanks’ daughter-in-law, Rev. Stephanie Spitzer of St. Paul’s United Church of Christ in Gerald, TX. The last was coined by Dr. Hanks and drawn from the Lent Talk given by Rev. John (a link to the address is in the first post). In this post, I’d like to briefly discuss the Ransom and Satisfaction Theories. 

The Ransom and Satisfaction theories, or some synthesis of those two, are what I believe domintates the thoughts most Christians have regarding the crucifixion. The Ransom Theory suggests that humankind’s sinful nature not only seperated us from God, but put us in Satan’s jurisdiction. Satan demanded a ransom for our souls, so Christ offered his own life — to Satan — as a substitute. Christ died, rose again, and gave each person the choice to stay in Satan’s sway or join the Jesus side. This choice is only possible because Christ died for us.

The Ransom Theory permeates Christian tradition through and through. Some read the Old Testament book of Hosea this way. God commands Hosea to return again and again to the slave-block to buy his wife, Gomer (well, golly!), out of prostitution. The name of God as Redeemer is also embued with the implications of the Ransom theory. Even C.S. Lewis’ much beloved The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe echos this — Aslan’s sacrifice saving Peter from the Witch Queen and the whatnot. Some would argue this is the biblical view. I actually wonder if some theologically ambiguous verses are retroactively attributed with this view. We’ll discuss that later.

The Satisfaction Theory is very similiar to the Ransom Theory, with one difference: instead of Christ paying a price demanded by Satan, Christ is paying a price demanded by God.  God (the Old Testament, God the Father, God) is absolute justice, and is unable or (just as disturbingly) refuses to redeem sinful man. Christ, God’s more compassionate self, came to earth and took our rap. Everyone wins: God’s wrath is satisfied, Christ’s desire for communion is satisfied, and we’re let off the hook.

For a lot of people, this resolve the tension between what they view as a wrathful, vengeful God of the OT and a compassionate, merciful Christ of the NT. It also means God isn’t subjected to the demands of Satan. Also, a lot a lot of people think that Scripture backs this view up.

As you’ve probably guessed, I’m not completely comfortable with either of these views.  They raise some problems that I feel betray the beauty of the Christian faith: they both sugest that God is constrained by some cosmic set of rules; they both suggest that these rules were set and settled in some heavenly summit that had little or nothing to do with humankind; and they both suggest that God is, among other things, a little schizophrenic. I don’t think they fully take account of the revelations of the Old Testament and, in the greater scheme, I don’t think they make a lot of sense. Like I’ve mention before, we’re told God’s ways are not our ways and his thoughts are not our thoughts (Isaiah 55:8), but I don’t think that means we can get lazy here. God commands that we love him with our minds (Matthew 22:37) and that we study to show ourselves approved (2 Timothy 2:15). (That was the scholar in me, citing my sources.)  

So, let us explore our options.  

::Kat

So, Easter. It’s a big deal.

 I’m a Christmas-girl myself, but it’s Easter that gives us Christianity as we understand it today.  Until the past week or so — and I’m ashamed to say this – I hadn’t really considered in any depth the implications of why Jesus was crucified. If you were born in the Church, you know Jesus died for your sins. What you may not know is why he had to die for your sins. I really didn’t ask this question since, even at an early age, I tired of Evangicubes and the daigram where YOU are on one cliff, then there’s a gaping chasm (helpfully labeled “SIN”) and the on the other side, on a another cliff, is GOD. I know it’s God because there are clouds and shiny lines.  It was clear: I am sinful, God is not, Jesus died to pay a price for my sin, and now I have communion with God.

Well, maybe.

I read a quote recently by (and I love his title) The Very Rev. Jeffery John, Dean of St. Alban’s.  He is very bothered by the typical, oblique explanation of the great mystery of the Christian faith. As The Telegraph paraphrased him, “Clergy who preach this Easter that Christ was sent to earth to die in atonement for the sins of mankind are “making God sound like a psychopath.” The article continues,

“In other words, Jesus took the rap and we got forgiven as long as we said we believed in him,” says Mr John. “This is repulsive as well as nonsensical. It makes God sound like a psychopath. If a human behaved like this we’d say that they were a monster.”

Mr John argues that too many Christians go through their lives failing to realise that God is about “love and truth”, not “wrath and punishment”. He offers an alternative interpretation, suggesting that Christ was crucified so he could “share in the worst of grief and suffering that life can throw at us”.

I’m not certain of all of Rev. John’s arguments (partly because I haven’t read them all), but I believe he is asking the right questions and I am moved by his conclusions. Granted, “His ways are not our ways, and His thoughts are not our thoughts,” but if that idea is treated as application rather than solace, we’d have no theology.  Last Sunday, we discussed some views on this sacrifice thing, what it really means, and what it says about God. In a series of posts, I’d like to share these ideas, maybe share my own conclusions, and get your feedback.

Links

The article from The Telegraph is here.

Rev. John’s Lent address, which the The Telegraph article was anticipating, is here.

::Kat