Tag Archives: Evangelical

Saved from Sacrifice // Chapter 3

The last post about S. Mark Heim’s Saved from Sacrifice focused on chapters 1 & 2 of the book, which discuss some of the difficulties in talking about the atonement in our current, modern society, and specifically how the language of ‘sacrifice’ is virtually unintelligible to us because of the cultural and religious differences that exist.

S. Mark Heim - Saved from Sacrifice

S. Mark Heim – Saved from Sacrifice

Another important piece of the ‘sacrifice’ puzzle comes from being located within the Judeo-Christian tradition. Those of us who grew up in a tradition that focused on penal substitution as the defining mechanism of Jesus’ death and resurrection will have enormous difficulty seeing the Hebrew sacrificial system as anything other than substitutionary in nature. Heim’s suggestion, however, is that looking at the Hebrew sacrificial system this way is to read our own cultural and religious biases into the text. In chapter 3, he takes the wide swath of the entire Hebrew Scripture and (I think successfully) attempts to use Girard’s model of violence and scapegoating to explain the what was happening in the sacrificial system. In doing so, he takes biblical inspiration seriously while creating a path towards a non-violent atonement in the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Violence in the Text

In chapter 2, Heim also pointed out that for the sacrificial scapegoating system to really work, the victim (or ‘scapegoat’) must remain ‘invisible.’ The use of myth in most (all?) religions generally helps to do this. They tell a story about why sacrifice is useful or necessary, usually from a cosmic standpoint, thus giving the community an excuse to use myth without fear of consequence. Further, each time the scapegoat is sacrificed for the sake of the community, he/she/it cannot be seen as actually innocent or victimized. Otherwise, the true nature of scapegoating becomes unveiled, causing the mechanism to unhinge. “Texts that hide scapegoating foster it. Texts that show it for what it is undermine it” (64).

The interesting thing about the Judeo-Christian narrative (not that it’s that simple or cohesive) is that its texts actually begin to bring the scapegoating theme to the forefront. Put another way, the Old Testament – in some instances – reveals scapegoating for what it is: the victimization of the innocent for the sake of communal reconciliation.

This is part of the reason why many see the biblical narrative as ultra-violent and wonder why. How could Christians, whose primary leader was radically non-violent, worship such a seemingly barbaric, tribal, violent deity (the one seen often in the Old Testament, particularly the conquest narratives)? Heim’s answer is that the violence shown in the text isn’t coincidental, but necessary, especially if humans are to be shown how scapegoating is ultimately harmful and evil. In answer to the question, what is violence doing in the Bible, Heim responds: “It is showing us the nature of the mimetic conflict that threatens to destroy human community,” and “…certain characterizations of sacrificial violence and God’s relation are a crucial part of the whole narrative… They are a necessary part of our understanding, even while they are not themselves a sufficient model for our behavior” (103). Unlike myth, which can ‘sweep over’ the evils of scapegoating, the Bible offers vivid pictures of violence so that victimization cannot be even implicitly affirmed.

All that said, let’s take a look at some of the places where mimetic rivalry and sacrificial scapegoating (and its critique) are featured in the OT.

Creation / Post-Creation

Interestingly, unlike other creation myths, the Genesis creation account is noticeably non-violent. While other myths might include gods cutting other gods in half to create the world or something similar, “the Bible insists that the true origin is a nonviolent one” (70).

Nonetheless, three chapters later, Adam and Eve’s ‘fall’ handily demonstrates why humans need sacrifice, as their casting out of the garden can be seen as a type of sacrifice in order to restore peace. In the next scene, Cain and Abel also shows mimetic rivalry in explicitly “antimythical terms” (71). While Abel’s blood sacrifice is accepted, God “has no regard” for Cain’s non-animal sacrifice. While some of the implications of this are unclear, what IS clear is the existence of jealousy that leads to murder, showing the beginning of the downward spiral of violence post-fall. From here, we see God promise Cain he will be avenged sevenfold if he is harmed, to Lamech who says he himself will be avenged seventy-sevenfold. Further along, God regrets the creation of the world because of the violence and immorality found in it. Even God participates in the cycle by destroying the world to start over, explicitly affirming using violence to fend off violence. Here, in clear terms, mimetic rivalry and violence show their ability for destruction.

After this, God promises Noah, in Genesis 9, that this would not happen again. “Whoever sheds the blood of a human, / by a human shall that person’s blood be shed.” This is roughly equivalent to the “eye for an eye” phrase most of us are familiar with. God’s command about vengeance in this scenario, however, leads to “a dramatic de-escalation” (73) of the violence in previous stories. This leads us to the territory of sacrifice: “From a world of wholesale violence we have entered the realm of proportioned violence, the realm of sacrifice” (ibid.).

The Practice of Sacrifice

Most people understand, at the very least, that sacrifice plays a prominent role in the Old Testament. This is true, not only in Leviticus (where nearly the entire sacrificial system is laid out), but is then continually referenced in the remainder of the OT canon. What IS interesting is the way in which it is presented, even when it is endorsed.

Heim mentions Leviticus 24:10-14, where a man, the son of an Israelite woman and an Egyptian man “blaphemes” the name of God with a curse during a fight that breaks out. The man is singled out as a blasphemer in front of the people of Israel and is stoned for his offense, and his stoning brings about peace and reconciliation within the community. The text completely endorses this version of scapegoating, but does so in a seemingly unprecedented way:

  1. Heim mentions that the behavior (scapegoating) is the same as in other cultures, but the description of the scapegoating event is not. Normally, this kind of event would be presented in a type of mythical account that overlooks the violence within. Instead, “It is presented in a flat and quite nonmythical setting” (75).
  2. This particular type of scapegoating is only found twice in the Leviticus text. The remainder of the text focuses on animal sacrifices and particular commandments for the Israelites.
  3. This particular instance of sacrificial scapegoating is linked to the commandments given in the text (“blaspheming the Name”). These commandments are meant to stop the escalation of retributive violence, but when this fails (as in Lev. 24), “the community will have to resort to communal unity against a scapegoat to restore peace.

The other major detailed focus on sacrificial scapegoating in Leviticus is found in the discussion about the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur). This is actually where we get the term “scapegoat” in the first place. In this ritual, among other things, two goats are chosen to be sacrificed for the sins of the people of Israel. One’s blood is offered in the sanctuary while the other is used for the transference of the people’s guilt. After having the sins of the people symbolically placed upon this scapegoat, it was expelled to the desert (or a rugged cliff), sent away from the people, ridding them of their sins.

Just like in the previous story, the community collectively centers its violence onto a single victim, which is charged with all of the sins of the community itself, thus ridding the community of its guilt. Heim notes, “What is striking about the ritual is not that it differs from [the scapegoating] model, but that it is so extraordinarily explicit in expressing the underlying dynamic” (77). Here we can see a subtle move in the text; although the text explicitly endorses scapegoating as useful and/or necessary, it also begins to make the victim ‘visible,’ thus working towards a move away from the effectiveness of scapegoating.

The Critique of Sacrifice (The Victim Revealed)

Further, in other canonical books, we can see explicit references to the downfalls of sacrifice and scapegoating.

For example, several of the Psalms reveal the psalmist himself as a victim or scapegoat being treated unjustly (though if the situation were presented from the community’s point of view, he/she would not have been revealed as such). Take Psalm 69:4, for example:

More in number than the hairs of my head / are those who hate me without cause; / many are those who would destroy me, / my enemies who accuse me falsely.

Is this not the scapegoating dynamic we see in the earlier texts, but reversed?

So too, in Job, we see the same thing in longer form. Furthermore, we see Job revealed as a scapegoat and refuse to consent to the guilt his friends are telling him to take on. While we cannot do justice to the entire book of Job here, it is important to note that Job can be seen not just as a book on suffering and faith, but as a critique of the sacrificial system as truly effective. Heim also says this:

The book of Job can be read as a kind of struggle for the soul of the biblical God, a trial as to whether this is a divinity of the classic, mythical, sacrificial sort, or something different (87).

The prophets take this further, as many of them criticize the nation of Israel for giving itself to the sacrificial system but ignoring the God who set up those systems in the first place. Amos, Ezekiel, and Jeremiah all deal with this subject in detail, as God (through the prophet/writer) laments the festivals and sacrifices done in God’s name. Instead, God “desire[s] steadfast love and not sacrifice / the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings” (Hos. 6:6).

Finally, Heim spends a significant amount of time on the suffering servant passage in Isaiah 52:13-53-12. It may be helpful to read this passage, specifically with the scapegoating themes in mind that we have discussed. Heim quotes Gil Bailie in reference to the suffering servant passage: “The Suffering Servant Songs combine two insights: first, that the victim was innocent and his persecutors wrong, and second, that his victimization was socially beneficial and that his punishment brought the community peace” (98, emphasis mine). Setting aside the preconceived ideas we have about this particular passage as Christians, it is important to note that neither the author of the text nor God seem to endorse the use of scapegoating in this passage. They call it out for what it is – wrong. However, this does not mean it doesn’t have good results (namely, communal and divine reconciliation). Though God does not endorse the use of sacrifice, God is still able to use sacrifice to benefit the community.

From here, Heim will move towards the crucifixion of Christ and how this is not only a continuation of the scapegoating theme, but virtually a cosmic critique of it.

Advertisements

Saved from Sacrifice // Introduction: A Stumble to Start With

At the risk of adding too much to my plate, I’d like to start another series on the blog, mainly for my own purposes. Since I graduated back in December, I decided that I would spend my extra time reading books that I was unable to during my undergraduate career due to time constraints or whatever else. In keeping with the promise I made to myself, I have read six books up to this point this year (which may not be much to some, but with a toddler running around, I have to say I’m impressed with myself!), and plan to read about thirty to forty by year’s end.

S. Mark Heim - Saved from Sacrifice

S. Mark Heim – Saved from Sacrifice

While doing so, I would also like to start an intensive book reviewing series. I’m not sure how often, but the current plan will be weekly, and I would like to start with Mark Heim’s Saved from Sacrifice: A Theology of the Cross (if you would like to see the other books I plan to read this year, click here).

Since the period of deep doubt and deconstruction of my faith began (it is by no means complete, nor do I think it ever will be), I have found my former understanding of the atonement as a penal substitution both untenable and – the more I read – unbiblical. This is where Saved from Sacrifice comes in. In his rethinking of the atonement, Heim is most strongly influenced by René Girard’s mimetic theory and sociological discoveries. These topics will be covered as we engage with Heim’s writing, chapter-by-chapter. Bear in mind that my primary reason for these reviews is for my own future reference. However, if you are reading and feel like you can contribute helpful dialogue and push-back, I will gladly welcome it!

So, let’s kick it off!

Heim starts the introduction with a recognition that any book about the atonement will be necessarily lacking. To reduce the work of Christ to simply the crucifixion and/or resurrection is always a mistake, and the author recognizes this from the start. However, this does not eliminate the need to talk about what happened at the cross, and why it’s important. Most of the current evangelical atonement theologies center around Christ as a sacrificial atonement for the sins of humanity. In other words, humanity has disobeyed God, and because of this, God’s sense of justice requires a blood sacrifice in repayment. Jesus, in this scenario, operates as the sacrifice that takes the punishment we ‘deserve,’ thereby allowing us to once again live in harmony with God (assuming we intellectually assent to this ‘truth’).

The problem is, in an increasingly modern culture, a God that demands a such a brutal punishment so that the ‘chasm’ between humanity and the divine could be crossed simply doesn’t make sense. Surely if God is ‘omnipotent,’ there had to be another way? (An idea Tony Jones discusses in one of his recent “Questions that Haunt Christianity” posts.) And if there was another way, we need to squarely come to grips with the fact that we believe in and worship a vengeful, violent deity. Heim says it this way:

This book is written because many find it hard to make sense of “Christ died for us.’ And it is written because others find it perfectly understandable and entirely objectionable, a dark brew of self-abnegation, violence, and abuse. They contend that belief in the redemptive power of Jesus’ death amounts to masochistic idealization of suffering. (3)

Of course, this is not to say that we need to scrap the atonement entirely for the sake of making Christianity somehow ‘relevant.’ Instead, we need to find an atonement that is both viable for the 21st century and takes biblical authority and tradition seriously (a point I agree with, even in spite of my disdain for ‘inerrancy’).

Atonement in Tradition

Before discussing what he notes as three or four major atonement theories throughout history that have dominated (at least western) Christianity, Heim briefly notes something very important. Theories of how the atonement work have NEVER been universally agreed-upon. Not only that, but they have also never been a part of creeds or statements of (‘little o’) orthodoxy. In other words, throughout history, Christians as a whole have never said that in order to be ‘saved,’ one must understand the atonement in a particular way. This includes the understanding of the Christ’s sacrifice as a substitution for our sins so humanity would not be punished and God’s wrath could be appeased. This – I think – should give us pause, especially those of us who, either currently or in the past, think (or thought) the only real way to be ‘saved’ is to believe in and accept what Jesus did on the cross as a substitution. That being said, here are the four major atonement theories:

  1. Penal Substitution – We’ve already discussed this one somewhat, so I’m not going to rehash. Plus, if you’re Evangelical or have Evangelical friends, you have no doubt heard this theory in one way or another.
  2. Moral Influence (or ‘Exemplarist’) – This theory suggests that Christ’s death “is meant to save us by making such a moving exhibition of God’s love that we are inwardly stirred to gratitude and service in return” (5). Though I could be wrong here, it seems to me that most of those who adhere to the ‘exemplarist’ model don’t (or at least don’t need to) take the divinity of Christ seriously. Heim also notes that it is best to understand Christ’s death within this theory not as “a transaction, but an inspiration” (5).
  3. Christus Victor – If you are at all familiar with The Chronicles of Narnia, particularly The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, then you may have a pretty good idea of how this theory works. Essentially, the cross is seen as God’s victory over some kind of power or third party (e.g., Satan, sin, etc.). God’s victory comes about by either paying a ransom (as if God is powerless to save humanity any other way) or “some form of trickery” — (think about how shocked the White Witch was that Aslan came back, despite their ‘deal’ to save Edmund).
  4. The Incarnational Model – Rather than focusing on the crucifixion as the crux to God’s saving work, the incarnational model views the divine incarnation in Jesus as the saving work. “God retraces the whole pattern of human life… transforming from within what has gone wrong with sinful humanity” (6). This theory/model focuses on God’s solidarity with humanity, up until and even through death.

Heim also notes at the end of this section that Christians most often understand the atonement as a combination of two or three of these theories to address different aspects of life. Although Heim and Scot McKnight seem to think that penal substitution can be combined with other theories, I disagree. If one accepts penal substitution as true, at best, other theories must take a backseat to substitution. (Tad DeLay has some thoughts on this here.)

The problem, for most people, is the notion of Christ as ‘sacrifice.’ Not only is the language archaic (i.e., some of its meaning is lost on us as modern westerners), but – to put it bluntly – it just sounds sort of sadistic. If we are going to take both Scripture and tradition seriously, we cannot simply get rid of the sacrificial language. However, what we can do is re-imagine it – hopefully in a way that gets closer to what Scripture was saying and more closely relates to Jesus’ peaceful, non-violent mission.

The Argument, in a Nutshell (The Anthropology of the Cross)

As Heim re-imagines the sacrificial language, he writes that the Gospels (and particularly the passion accounts) turn sacrificial language on its head. Normally, in ancient sacrificial scapegoating cultures (which is common to nearly every society, according to Girard), “communities solve their internal conflicts by uniting against a chosen victim… [which] staves off more generalized factional or retributive violence” (15). Not only that, but generally, the victim in these cultures generally stayed ‘invisible.’ Their story was unimportant; they were simply a means to an end. The Gospels, however, not only show God entering into our broken system of ‘justice’ – they tell the story from Christ’s (the victim’s!) perspective. The victim is no longer invisible, but is put on display for all to see.

The Hebrew scriptures, as Heim and others have noted, actually already point to the inherent injustice in the sacrificial scapegoating system. Nevertheless, the ultimate portrayal of its injustice is found and shown directly in the murder of Jesus as the ‘victim on display.’

This is where Heim will continue his writing, and where we will begin next time.

Friday Funday // 01.09.2013

First Friday Funday of the New Year!

Piper’s theology here still centers the abuser. A woman must merely transfer her obedience to a separate authority – on a temporary basis – in the hopes that her abuser will see the light. But that simply opens the door for abusers to revictimize, as abusers are quite savvy at making it look like they’ve changed while still engaging in abusive behavior.

So, I would like to offer these three responses to my evangelical brothers and sisters: 1) Everyone and everything has problems; 2) We need to properly differentiate between fundamentalism and evangelicalism; and 3) We need to love the Church despite itself.

  • This was a couple of weeks ago, but Brandan Robertson posted an introduction to (what I hope will be) a long-running series on “The Spectrum of Protestantism.” He also posted a follow-up post here.

At the end of the creation of this spectrum, after recieving a lot of input from my friends, I did come to one conclusion: creating a spectrum is a really hard thing to do. But that doesn’t mean it’s not an important thing to do.

  • Darkwood Brew is doing a series on homosexuality and the Church called “For the Love of God.” So far, it’s been beautiful. Part one is below, and here is part two.

Did you find anything interesting on the webs this week? I’m interested, so post a link in the comment section!

Why Monkeys Need “Salvation” – Part 3

This is part 3 in a series on Evolution, Original Sin, and Atonement. To start at the beginning, click here.


In my last post, I spoke a little bit about the scientific evidence for evolution. I don’t consider myself a scientist in the slightest, but I figured a Biology 101 review would be helpful. I understand there may be many of you the reject the evidence for evolution, but you should be aware that the theory of evolution is virtually incontrovertible within the scientific community. It is the paradigm by which countless other disciplines operate, and (considering what I’ll be talking about today) it is totally compatible with a Christian worldview.

Evolution & Inerrancy

The major issue that many Evangelicals come up against when trying to reconcile evolution and the biblical text is the creation account found at the beginning of Genesis and the story of Adam (not to mention all of the doctrines affected by the reality of evolution). The problem here is that most Evangelicals feel that they must accept the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture, which forces them to read the Genesis creation account(s) non-critically, and in the same manner as a scientific textbook – this, in my opinion, is a colossal mistake.

Article 12 of The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy reads as follows:

We affirm that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit.

We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.

In other words, the creators of the doctrine of inerrancy would say it is inappropriate for sound reason and historical and scientific evidence to trump a story written by ancient people regarding the origins of the earth and of humanity. Despite all of the evidence to the contrary, holding to inerrancy forces Evangelicals to reject a scientific theory that has been proven and tested by scientists for decades.

in-a-book

David Hayward – http://nakedpastor.com

This is not to mention the fact that the term “inerrancy” is found nowhere in the biblical text itself, nor is the idea that every word of the biblical text must be historically factual for it to retain its authority within Christianity. To say that the writings within the Bible are inerrant (and must be to maintain its authority in matters of faith and practice) imposes particularly modern ways of thinking onto a book of ancient writings. The Bible was never meant to conform to this kind of modern scrutiny. It can’t, and we shouldn’t expect it to.

Evolution & Adam

If we lose the idea that the Bible is inerrant, but still remain adamant about its authority for matters of faith and practice, this means that we still need to figure out what to do with the Genesis creation account(s) and particularly the story of Adam – if we are to accept evolution as true. Just as the discovery of a heliocentric galaxy shook the foundations of pre-modern Christianity, but is now widely accepted because of our misunderstanding of what the Bible meant in certain places, the same can be said for the discovery and acceptance of evolution and its relation to our understanding of God and Scripture.funny-Adam-Eve-white-evolution

In general, biblical scholars date the writing and compilation of much of the Hebrew Bible to the exilic and post-exilic periods. (VERY) Broadly speaking, after being kicked out of their land, Israel needed to find a way to maintain its identity as the people of Yahweh and their relationship to God. As such, the creation account in Genesis – and particularly Genesis 2 and 3 – reveals Adam as a type of “proto-Israel.” In other words, the story of Adam can be better understood as Israel attempting to understand itself and its actions through a mythological character (where myth is an ancient, pre-scientific way of understanding origins – see Peter Enns, Inspiration and Incarnation).

The parallels between Israel’s history and the story of Adam are pretty stark. Enns shows a few of the parallels at BioLogos:

Israel’s history as a nation can be broken down as follows:

    • Israel is “created” by God at the exodus through a cosmic battle (gods are defeated and the Red Sea is “divided”);
    • The Israelites are given Canaan to inhabit, a lush land flowing with milk and honey;
    • They remain in the land as long as they obey the Mosaic law;
  • They persist in a pattern of disobedience and are exiled to Babylon.

Israel’s history parallels Adam’s drama in Genesis:

    • Adam is created in Genesis 2 after the taming of chaos in Genesis 1;
    • Adam is placed in a lush garden;
    • Law (not to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil) is given as a stipulation for remaining in the garden;
  • Adam and Eve disobey and are exiled.

An understanding of Adam as “proto-Israel” greatly helps in the attempt to maintain some sense of biblical authority while also allowing scholars and scientists to honestly observe and interpret data without being bound to some false interpretation of Genesis as a divinely inspired scientific textbook that trumps our ability to observe and interpret natural phenomena.

What we simply cannot do is try to retain “inerrancy” as a doctrine if we are going to accept evolution as a scientific reality. It is not a claim the Bible makes about itself, nor does it affect the authority of the Bible in the faith and lives of Christ-followers.

Friday Funday // 12.14.2012

I had basically zero time to post this week. Well, that’s not true. I technically had time to write. Alas, we had family in town from my graduation on Friday, and my daughter (lovely as she is) decided to not sleep well this week, which led me to not do much if I did have free time. Anyway, I’m planning on returning to normal blogging next week. Here’s some awesome stuff I found on the internet this week!

I ask this question, not in an attempt to extinguish someone’s faith in the Bible or be the cruel child on the playground who insists “Santa isn’t real,” but because I think we miss something vitally important about the biblical text if we so adamantly insist each and every story must be historically and literally true.

How sad, especially when the Bible they claimed to love and follow teaches that perfect love casts out fear. When we love, we reject shame. We do not use fear to control. Shame is impotent to love or help us grow – it is a prison. We must not succumb to the temptation to hide behind a veil, to pretend to be who we are not.

The excess-supplement is always at work in belief.  There is never simply what is consciously known/experienced; there is always an underside that opposes conscious recognition.

  • I somehow had not discovered Macklemore & Ryan Lewis until this week. Legit Seattle-based hip hop. [warning: some explicit language]

Did you find anything awesome this week? Post a link!

Friday Funday // 12.07.2012

Friday Funday, but a day late. Anyway, I found some awesome stuff this week on the nets.

The top 3 biggest obstacles evangelicalism faces today are:

1) Self-appointed spokesmen who manage to gain public credibility (as speaking for all evangelicals) and use that influence to exclude evangelicals they consider too “progressive” in their beliefs and interpretations of the Bible.

2) Belief that “evangelicalism” is a closed movement with definite boundaries that have to be patrolled (e.g., “inerrancy”).

3) Perceived dominance of Reformed theology as normative for evangelical faith.

I really have no interest in defending or redefining the words catholic, orthodox or evangelical. I will leave that to many others. But, one word that I do want to keep taking a closer look at is the word Christian. I don’t want to solely take a genealogical look at it, but rather seek to rediscover the original impetus of what the word is “getting at,” and consider its potential use(s) in our current cultural situation.

But we keep it quiet, the mess of the Incarnation, because it’s just not church-y enough and men don’t quite understand and it’s personal, private, there aren’t words for this and it’s a bit too much.

What is needed is a far more root and branch deconstruction of the theological, political, cultural and social narratives that men have fed us for so long; narratives that spring from repressed feelings about women, and explicit oppression of them.

  • N.T. Wright does a video (back in April, but it’s still good) entitled “Look at Jesus.”

 

Friday Funday // 11.30.2012

In an attempt to be a little more *ahem* relational in my bloggy-blogging – not to mention, I really want to introduce my quite small number of readers to stuff I like – I am going to start posting a weekly blog about stuff I’ve found around the internets that I think is worth the time to take a peek at. Enjoy!

“Mallory,” he said, “I know you are a strong woman of God.” So far, so good. “I know you are very gifted, very intelligent.” He paused and wiped his glasses. “I think this impulse you have to – wield authority – over others, over men – comes from the Devil.” He said it kindly; he was not angry with me but concerned.

“Ah,” I said. Something to consider

Fundamentalists often treat the Bible as a set of propositional statements designed to conform to modern, enlightenment-influenced expectations. It is flattened out and simplified, used as a weapon against other people and a prop for pet political and theological positions… Leaving fundamentalism means learning to accept the Bible on its own terms, loving it for what it is, not what we want it to be.

But also — and here’s a wonderful part of the story we too often forget — the epiphany that unfolds from this freaky incarnation works both ways. If the person and the life of Jesus Christ taught us humans everything we need to know about God, that life also taught God what it is like to be one of us.

We should not let the theologians have the word faith. We should not give it to them. We should not give them the word hope, or other words like grace or even prayer. They don’t belong to the theologians; they belong to us. They are part of the furniture of human existence, part of the structure of human existence…

  • Pat Robertson delivered a shocking statement on his stance regarding reconciling a literal understanding of the biblical writings and scientific understandings of the age of the earth. (H/T James McGrath)

  • This came out a couple of weeks ago, but The Punch Brothers came out with a new EP called “Ahoy!” Great piratey music! Below is an awesome cover of “Icarus Smicarus” by Mclusky, which is included in the EP.

Did you find anything awesome this week? Post a link!