Passive Aggressive Jesus?
Does it send the right message to have crucifixes (images of Jesus being crucified) in church? Rachelle doesn’t think so.
as I sat in front of the huge gold crucifix with its weighty, anguished Christ, I had second thoughts about bringing my children to this place. You see, I believe you have to use art to preach. I believe that for a post-modern generation image is often, maybe always, more powerful than words. And this art, this occupied cross, is screaming “YOU stuck me up here and I’m never EVER coming down.â€
I don’t want to indoctrinate my children with that kind of passive aggressive Jesus. I don’t want them to bear the incessant guilt, to always see an image of pain crowning their holy space. I don’t think the good news of Christ is that we get to soak in scenes from a Mel Gibson movie for the rest of our lives. I’m pretty sure Jesus never said the good news was, “I’m going to die on the cross and you get to look at that for the rest of your lives.†I’m pretty sure what he said was, “Woo Hoo! The kingdom of God is at hand!â€
Comment by: benjamin ady
1 03/5/08 3:17 PM | Comment Link |Rachelle is awesome.
Comment by: Ashley
2 03/5/08 3:43 PM | Comment Link |I suppose it’s a matter of taste in terms of artistic expression of a particular event of Christian history. I have to admit that Italian Renaissance paintings of Jesus on the Cross make Him look like a bit of a wuss. But many people (esp. people who lived in the Italian Renaissance) think they’re pretty good. I heard that portrayals of Christ in Anglo-Saxon culture is much more fierce, with Christ all powerful, pretty much saying “Look at me, I’m up here because I *want* to be here. Rock on.” Their beatitudes may reflect this a bit as well — blessed are the valiant, etc.
I’m sorry your experiences led to this. Maybe you could bring this up to the leadership of the church and see if it could be moved to a different area of the church.
Comment by: Eliza
3 03/5/08 8:35 PM | Comment Link |I really liked two paragraphs after the section quoted above:
Two thoughts: The discussions at the OTM sites led me to read several of Brian McLaren’s books, which I’ve found very interesting. In particular, in “Generous Orthodoxy” he points out that many Christian denominations focus on the death of Jesus (and resurrection, of course), but a few focus on the life of Jesus (and his teachings). That has rung so true for me, as I read & listen to many Christians - it often seems that you can tell, not long into the conversation, which part they are focused on. Jesus on the cross seems a big clue that the denomination is focused on the death/resurrection part.
I wasn’t sure why Jesus was the one being called passive aggressive in this piece…wasn’t it the artist, or whomever commissioned the piece, or the leadership of the church which decided to put it up in front of the congregation? Why blame Jesus?
Comment by: Rachelle Mee-Chapman
4 03/6/08 1:30 AM | Comment Link |Good comments all!
Why Blame Jesus?
I can only speak to this from my own experience — both as a lifelong church go-er, and as a minister who works with ‘recovering evangelicals.’
For thirty years churches told me that I was bad, and that Jesus suffered for it. How did we know that’s how it went down? Because Jesus said so. Furthermore, Jesus called this message the “good news.”
Even though there is often an addendum about the resurrection and forgiveness, the stronger message was always our/my blame. On top of this oral message, there was the visual reinforcement of seeing the cross (occupied or otherwise) everywhere, to the point that this instrument of torture and death was the primary symbol of Christianity.
Other symbols, like the bread and wine at Communion were also intricately linked to the death of Jesus and my role in it–including my need to partake of his ‘body and blood’ every week in order to get cleansed/fixed up.
What kind of spiritual formation did this result in? Well, a pastor once asked me to imagine Jesus coming to my door. When I opened the door, what would Jesus say? My immediate answer was, “Oh, it’s you. (Sigh.) Well, not good enough, but I guess I’ll let you in anyway.” To be clear, this was what my adult experience of Christianity was. It was not just a misunderstanding held by a small child — but my post-seminary, grown up understanding of myself as seen through the eyes of Christ. That is what a lifetime of church teaching and symbolism had formed in me — and in the many people I now work with who are struggling to reconstruct a more healthful version of their faith.
I think it’s dangerous to feed (quite literally) such a message to children, or to anyone, the way the church–especially the evangelical branch–as done. And I agree with Brian that too many churches emphasize the death of Jesus and not the life of Jesus. (Ironically, the one church in my experience that has emphasized the life of Jesus was the liberal Episcopalian church — which my evangelical pastoral colleagues always criticized for having poor theology…)
Christy Lambert is doing some excellent (and honest) thinking about exorcising false versions of Jesus over at
http://drybonesdance.typepad.com/dry_bones_dance
It’s interesting reading…
Comment by: Rachelle Mee-Chapman
5 03/6/08 1:41 AM | Comment Link |P.s. Pleae note that in my orginal post I didn’t say that crucifixes in the church sent the wrong message — I said keeping them up there all the time sent a confusing message.
As a pastor, I would love to create a rite where the congregation, as a community, took Jesus off the cross–at the very least for Easter and Eastertide.
Of course, I know my pastor in Copenhagen could never do that, as I’m sure this particular crucifix is a priceless work of art from some long gone era!
BTW, I believe the Eastern Orthodox church always has an icon of the risen Christ as their central image. I wonder what kind of spiritual formation that would nuture over a persons lifetime?
Comment by: Helen
6 03/6/08 7:34 AM | Comment Link |Hi Rachelle, thanks for stopping by and responding.
Sorry if my lead-in misrepresented what you’re saying. Maybe I read my issues into this too much. I do have major issues with the cross.
So are you saying you’re ok with your children seeing Jesus being tortured some of the time, as long as it’s not all the time?
I have problems all the time that God NEEDED to have Jesus tortured (or Jesus needed to volunteer for it - whatever) in order to ’save’ humanity. So I suppose I would never want anyone to see it but especially not children.
I don’t really get the symbolism of taking Jesus off the cross although I completely agree with you in wanting theology to be a positive (life-giving, hope-giving), not a negative (guilt-producing) thing.
But maybe that’s because it bothers me too much that he’s on there in the first place. Taking him down is going along with the story that I put him there. Since I have huge problems with that, I suppose I wouldn’t want to participate in taking him down as if I agreed with the belief I put him there.
And the issue is not arrogance, it is not that I think I am sinless, it is just that this equation makes no sense to me: torture=salvation.
Comment by: Kathy
7 03/6/08 11:00 AM | Comment Link |I think the catholic church used the crucifix for their own benefit. It is easier to control people that are guilt ridden. It also can become idolatry one way or the other (off or on the cross).
On the other hand, “there is no remission for sin without the shedding of blood”. We did not put Him on the cross, he GAVE his life.
Comment by: Christy
8 03/6/08 1:47 PM | Comment Link |I’m with Helen, I think. It’s the torture=salvation thing that is a problem for me. Whether you leave the cross/crucifix up or down, when the message is that “Jesus died for your sins”, that creates all kinds of nasty side effects of guilt and shame, I think.
Like Rachelle, I think the idea that Jesus died to keep God from sending us to hell spiritually forms us in a particular way - and not in a way I’d recommend.
Comment by: Kathy
9 03/6/08 2:42 PM | Comment Link |So what do you then do with it? You can’t go back and change it, and God is the planner of salvation. So what do we do with the ugliness of the cross? He did die for our sins. God does not send us to hell does he? Isn’t it our choice to choose?
Comment by: benjamin ady
10 03/6/08 2:49 PM | Comment Link |Kathy,
I think I love you. In a totally sibling type way, of course. I’m wondering–are you a Catholic?
If not, here’s another question. I totally agree with you that the Roman Catholic Church, as an institution, has certainly been guilty of being controlling, among worse evils. But … if you’re not Catholic, I wonder–do you attend a church? If so, I wonder, can you identify the ways in which your own church engages in guilt-inducement and or controlling behaviors/controlling ways of relating?
Comment by: benjamin ady
11 03/6/08 2:53 PM | Comment Link |By “it”, I guess you mean “this version/interpretation of the story”
I guess my answer is mostly that I reject it. Don’t buy it. etc.
Comment by: Kathy
12 03/6/08 4:38 PM | Comment Link |I am not Catholic although was an almost “catholic” when I was a child. Yes I go to church. We don’t do the guilt thing at all. (most of us have our own load already, why heap on more)
He died for us, he rose for us, we are to live our lives as an example of His love. Not letting the accuser of the brethren interupt our walk and hold us back from the goal.
Comment by: benjamin ady
13 03/6/08 5:14 PM | Comment Link |Thank you Kathy,
It’s kewl that you … don’t do the guilt thing at all.
I guess we could talk about guilt as both an emotion and as a … sort of judicial reality. I do reasonably well on the former, but on the latter, I find I cannot really manage to escape. I kind of have a two pronged approach to this.
On the one hand, I find I want to be somehow increasingly aware of the objective reality of my “sins”, on both a personal and an in-group basis. By sins here I mean the ways in which I harm others by ommission and commission, both personally and as part of institutions and systems.
And on the other hand, I want to avoid a sort of constipating emotional involvement with that, and instead choose to use it to implement small changes to actually reduce that guilt–I mean by changing my personal method of operating, and working toward chaning the operational methods of the instituions/cultures of which I am a part.
Hope that makes some kind of sense.
But I don’t understand, from a judicial sense. how my “sins” are related to the execution by torture of Jesus in 33 C.E. I can more easily see how my sins are related to, for instance, the deaths of Palestinian civilians in Gaza at the hands of Israeli defense forces this week.
Comment by: Helen
14 03/6/08 5:21 PM | Comment Link |Benjamin wrote:
Benjamin, so I can understand your thinking on this: can you explain how they’re related?
Comment by: Kathy
15 03/6/08 5:50 PM | Comment Link |You have to see with spiritual eyes, not natural eyes. we are all sinners, no matter if our sins just hurt our own being or someone around us. I am not sure if being guilt free is even possible, but the guilt of sin can only be relieved thru His forgivenss. Palestinians in the Gaza strip, a Jewish school in Israel and a roadside bomb in Iraq, all boils down to one thing…sin. I don’t understand how your sin is related (see Helens comment)
Comment by: Kathy
16 03/6/08 5:52 PM | Comment Link |Oh I forgot… a bomb in NY TImes Sqaure too. Hasn’t been a real good day around the entire world.
Comment by: Rachelle Mee-Chapman
17 03/7/08 12:45 AM | Comment Link |I resonate with the comments here of those who a are experiencing aproblem with the penal substutional atonement equation:
my sins + Jesus’s blood/ suffering = freedom from hell/ salvation
First of all there’s the problem of hell itself. How can you reconcile a loving, all-powerful God with a God who would condemns his/her children to an infinite eternity in hell because of an finite number of errors on earth?
Then there’s the mathematics of violence( see above) that is required for penal substutional atonement to work. How does this theological development live cohesively with the message of Christ regarding seeking peace and shalom for all? How does it exsist logically with the church’s insistence that in God there is unconditional love?
These things (and more) make the traditional fundamentalist and/or evangelical view of the cross impossible for me to align myself with any longer. And I do not want to pass it on to my children.
What if the historical reality of the cross has been used throughout time as a myth– a “truth bearing story” which is trying to convey something to its hearers about a universal truth? Could that universal truth-message be about love, forgiveness, and nobilty without being about human sacrifice and the power of torture to bring about atonement? I think it can, and I’m excited about the continuing work of scholars in the postmodern and mainline churches who are considering post-atonement models for undertanding the cross.
Women theologians are doing excellent work in this area, and I can recommend the text Proverbs of Ashes, as an intriguing starting point. Other book include Non Violent Atonement, and Brian McLaren also summarizes various atonement theologies in his book A Generous Orthodoxy, as does the book Recovering the Scandal of the Cross, which may be more appealing to evangelical readers because of its emphasis on the variety of understandings of the cross presented in the NT.
Good thinking all…keep chewing on it!
Comment by: Rachelle Mee-Chapman
18 03/7/08 12:57 AM | Comment Link |.
Hmmm..interesting Helen. I think I see what you are saying.
But what if I wasn’t the one who put him up there? What if I was taught, from childhood, that a corrupt government and a political power play put him up there — a man that I loved, a teacher whom I follow. And what if I and the community I call my family was able to take him down.
It gives me chills. I think there’s power in that. I would LOVE the opportunity the craft that rite and see how it impacted those involved.
Another interesting question. Off the top of my head…like it or lump it this violence is part of my family story. So is the holocaust/shoah, the crusades, and other tales of suffering. Do I protect my children from all of these? Or do I seek healthful, honest ways of presenting those stories?
I don’t like having the crucifix or the cross as a predominate symbol for my children. Thus our family’s emphasis on the loaf and the chalice, and not as symbols of sacrificial atonement, but as symbols of provision, abundance, and unity. (Plus these are such powerful feminine images of the divine…but that’s another topic altogether.)
I agree that exposing children to the violence of the cross, especially visually, is problematic. It’s time, don’t you think, for the church to re-imagine and re-image this part of our story.
Comment by: benjamin ady
19 03/7/08 4:50 AM | Comment Link |Hey all.
Sorry so long to get back to you.
So coupla things:
How are my sins related to the killing this week of 60+ civilians by the Israeli Defense Forces? That’s a reasonable question. It’s a bit complex, so please try to follow me on this. I live in America. Basically, the U.S. government is paying for me to go to University, through grants and loans. I enjoy relatively high security, and a relatively high standard of living. A relatively excellent infrastructure. A relatively long life expectancy. Relatively easy access to various forms of travel, including …
OK, you get the picture. I have lots of priveleges. Meanwhile 3 billion people (that’s 1 out of 2) on the planet get by on $2/day or less. 1 billion people don’t have access to clean fresh water (that’s 1 out of 6).
This disparity is evil. And … more than being evil, it’s not natural. I mean to say that the only way we super rich people stay this much richer than all those super poor people is by taking steps to ensure that we stay that much richer than them. So, for instance, we have the biggest, most powerful, most expensive military on the planet. What our military really constitutes is the most teffifyingly powerful death and mayhem machine in the history of mankind.
And this whole system that I’ve described extends, of course, beyond the U.S. To some extent, Israel is a part of it. And the Israeli defense forces used, for instance, American built Apache gunships in their killing of 60 Palestinian civilians this week.
So in light of all that, my guilt is two fold. On the one hand, and sort of less directly, by willingly participating in the system as one of the super rich powerful people, and by failing to speak and act against that system, I am guilty of the deaths of those civilians. And on the other hand, Some of the wealth which I have created over the years, which has gone to the U.S. federal government in the form of tax dollars, got spent directly on building those Apache gunships, and then selling them to Israel at … special ally prices. Other Americans, my countryman, literally with their hands and their brains built those apache gunships, and the ammunition they fire, and thus … created death for 60+ Palestinian civilians this past week, and wounding/mayhem for many more. I grew up saying the pledge of allegiance, I pay into the system, I take advantage of the system, so I share in the guilt of America for creating that death and destruction.
I realize that’s a bit convoluted. It’s true. The more real/present guilt is, for instance, the destruction I create in the lives of my beautiful daughters when I lose my temper with them, and also when I fail to spend quality time with them. But the more *distant* guilt is the killing of Jesus in C.E. 33. I can’t even imagine any sort of convoluted way I can share in that guilt.
Comment by: benjamin ady
20 03/7/08 4:55 AM | Comment Link |So a question and a comment.
What are “spiritual eyes”?
And I totally disagree about methods for obtaining of forgiveness. This was true for me even when I was still a Christian–I found that forgiveness from Jesus was ineffective for me. By “ineffective”, I mean it didn’t do two things: 1. It didn’t help with the *emotion* of guilt, and 2. It didn’t help me change my behavior.
I find (and I began finding this back when I was a Christian) that getting forgiveness from other living, present, human beings is *way* more effective for me. It helps with the emotion, and it enables me to change my behavior. It works orders of magnitude better than forgiveness from Jesus. For me, anyway. =)
Comment by: Helen
21 03/7/08 5:38 AM | Comment Link |Benjamin thanks for elaborating. (I guessed your answer would be something like that)
Some of what you’re saying seems to amount to “I’m guilty for being born in this country”. That can’t possibly be your fault.
There’s a difference between “this is wrong and unjust and I would like to change it/speak out against it” and “this is my fault”. To me that difference is important. If we say “this is all our fault” how are we any different from Rachelle looking at a crucified Jesus saying “YOU did this”? How are we any different from Christians who always feel guilty and feel what they’re doing is never enough? Where is grace in that way of thinking?
Doesn’t Grace say “It’s not your fault you were born in the richer part of the world; thank you for seeing it and caring; please help if you can” rather than “yes it IS your fault and I want you to feel bad about something you didn’t cause and about what you won’t be able to fix on your own no matter how hard you try”.
Do you see what I’m saying? What’s the point of leaving conservative Christianity if the guilt [that some people feel under it] simply gets transferred over to guilt that the world is broken, as if I broke it?
I’m not saying don’t care and I’m not saying don’t take action that could help. I am saying, don’t take on guilt for things we didn’t cause.
Comment by: Kathy
22 03/7/08 9:06 AM | Comment Link |WOW,,thats a lot to digest all at once, and today is my volunteer day so I have to leave. Benjamin, do you always view circumstances as the “half full, half empty” glass of proverbial water? Perhaps it is the negative side of thinking that causes you to feel guilty for these things. Instead, why can’t you look and see how blessed of God you are that you are not in the REAL midst of those things? One other meandering thougt is this: Why the bent on the Palestinians and not the whole of the misjustice in the entire world? Why just the Palestinians?? I agree with Helen, don’t take on guilt for something you personaly did not cause. I think that is called a “Guilt trip”. I have to go but will respond later to a couple of other things.
Comment by: Kathy
23 03/7/08 9:17 AM | Comment Link |Rachel said:
It’s time, don’t you think, for the church to re-imagine and re-image this part of our story.
This is not our story is it? Isn’t it God’s story and His plan of salvation? If we re-imagine and re-image, isn’t that a lie? I did not think the cross was an “imagination”. I am sure it wasn’t for Jesus. Haven’t we been called to contend for the TRUTH of God’s word? Are we permitted to just change it at our whim because we may not like parts of it?
JUDE 1 vs 3
Comment by: Helen
24 03/7/08 9:23 AM | Comment Link |Rachelle, thanks for your response. In a lot of ways it sounds like we’re on the same page.
Kathey if it’s God’s story then we’re not free to change it. But if it’s the story of humans trying to understand life, the universe and everything (including God if he/she exists) as best they could a thousand and more years ago then yes, we are free to change it based on whatever we’ve learned since then.
Comment by: benjamin ady
25 03/7/08 11:19 AM | Comment Link |Helen, Kathy
… Again I would draw a distinction between the *emotion* of guilt and a sort of *judicial reality* of guilt.
So I’m not … *feeling* super guilty about the deaths of Palestinian civilians at the hands of Israeli defense forces using U.S. made armaments. I’m just saying I think there’s a reasonable case to be made for a … judicial reality of my guilt. It’s … very spread out, so I don’t get much of it. (although there’s also a cumulative thing, if you add up the millions of innocents that the American military has killed over the last 50 years, and then throw in all the innocents that have been killed using U.S. made weapons over that same 50 years)–but there’s 300 million of us, and I’m relatively less guilty than, say, the chief executive of ATK tech systems. So even though there is a certain level of *real* (I mean, judicial) guilt, it’s pretty tiny. It’s related to the banality of evil. The reason the evil continues is because *most* of us who have to take on these tiny increments of judicial guilt never do or say anything about it–it’s so tiny we ignore it. I’m trying to take steps to stop ignoring it. =)
But I’m not walking around with a cloud of guilt, like I used to be back when I was a Christian.
Although it *is* true that I’m a glass half empty kind of person. But this isn’t totally accurate. I’m more of a glass 98% empty kind of person. Or … maybe I’m more into wondering why *my* glass is 98% full, and so many other people’s glasses are 98% empty, and thinking maybe I should pour a little of my water into their glass, before we start drinking. Especially since I’ve spent my life with way more than enough safe water, while they’ve been walking miles every day to draw water from a polluted source.
…My favorite Christian author, George Macdonald, talked about how he’s not happy or willing to be blessed or chosen by god while others get cursed and rejected. I guess Moses kind of had this take on things as well. And I guess I lean that way. I just don’t like that god, and I decided to kill him. So I did. =p (okay, I still am. He’s hard to kill =)
And you asked “Why the Palestinians?”
It’s because … the media and cultural bias here in the U.S. is massively titled *against* the Palestinians, so I’m doing my tiny little part to rectify that.
golly I’m getting long-winded here.
Comment by: Helen
26 03/7/08 12:01 PM | Comment Link |Benjamin, if you were talking about guilt you feel that makes you miserable then I’d try to talk you out of it because I don’t think it’s rightfully yours.
But if it’s more an *opinion* than a feeling then…we can agree to disagree on that and agree to agree on wanting to see change.
Comment by: Kathy
27 03/7/08 3:28 PM | Comment Link |Helen,
I don’t think we can arbitrarily (did I spell that right?) change the gospel regardless of our understanding, just like I don’t think we can change the history of the United States. I really hate the part about the Cowboys and Indians, and that the European Whites slaughtered almost an entire race of native people. Can we just get a different understanding of that and change it?
Comment by: Jim Henderson
28 03/7/08 3:59 PM | Comment Link |Having fun Rachelle?
Kathy - dont forget the part about kidnapping millions of Arficans and then using their “free” labor to create the most successful economy the world has ever known.
Imagine what “God’s country” would look like if we hadn’t done that
Pesky history - I hate it
Reminds me of the OT story of Achan who hid a piece of gold in his tent and drew Yahweh’s justice down on all of Israel
Comment by: Helen
29 03/7/08 4:43 PM | Comment Link |Kathy, yes, we can’t change history.
But I don’t share your conviction that ‘the gospel’ is history. It’s an interpretation of what some old stories mean, if indeed they are even true.
Comment by: Kathy
30 03/7/08 7:07 PM | Comment Link |Jim, I didn’t forget. I happen to agree with you. (wow imagine that!)
Helen, I can only offer you 2 Timothy 3, vs 14, 15 and emphasis on vs 16. “All Scripture is inspired by God” The gospel is the “good news”. Science has proved many things in the bible to be true, I choose to beleive all of it. Not too sure any of us are all that wise to change its content. Especially the crucifixtion and resurrection of Christ. Isn’t this apostacy to do so? And can you back up what you are saying with scripture (I mean the “getting an undersatnding” part)
Comment by: Kathy
31 03/7/08 7:14 PM | Comment Link |Helen, One more thing….If you really do not believe, then why do you care if the gospel is spoken at all? Or how it is presented? My core beliefs is what drives me on to contend for the truth of God’s word. I don’t like to see good people led astray and deceived. What is your driving force?
Comment by: Helen
32 03/7/08 7:29 PM | Comment Link |Kathy, I care if the gospel makes people miserably guilt-ridden. I think that’s something we both have in common: we don’t want to see a message proclaimed that has a negative effect on people.
Comment by: Kathy
33 03/7/08 7:36 PM | Comment Link |I guess I would have to say that I have never experienced that. Jesus in my life has only been positive. I was negative and guilt ridden before I knew Him, not after. He said “take my yoke upon you and learn of me, for my yoke is easy and my burden is light” I don’t really think I know anyone who thiks that Jesus is a negative on their lives. Could it be the ones who discipled you taught you wrong? I think of the parable of the seeds.
Comment by: benjamin ady
34 03/7/08 8:18 PM | Comment Link |smile =)
Can you tell me what “spiritual eyes” are?
Sounds like maybe you’re a glass 98% full kind of person =)
I call this kind of thinking/language HHJJ (for Happy happy joy joy), and it’s a big part of what puts me off so much about Sunday-Morning-Church®.
But if it works for you, that’s totally awesome for you. =)
Comment by: Kathy
35 03/7/08 8:40 PM | Comment Link |Benjamin,
“Spiritual eyes” = seeing life through the Holy Spirit. (you probably have no idea what that means too, right?)Ist John 4: 4-5 “you speak with the view point of the world” read the chapter maybe you will understand what I am trying to say
Please do not confuse me with the Sunday-morning church faced , everything is perfect people. That isnt what I am about and is not what I intended to convey. My life is as real as the next guy. I just got home from a funeral of a good friend and a great person. I took no happy happy or joy joy in the hurt on her families faces and the tears they shed. I have crummy days too, the only difference is I do have truth and hope, it is in Jesus.
Comment by: Kathy
36 03/7/08 8:57 PM | Comment Link |Sounds like maybe you’re a glass 98% full kind of person =)
LOVE KEEPS NO RECORD OF WRONG.
I chose love.
Comment by: Lisa
37 03/7/08 9:20 PM | Comment Link |Kathy, I’m sorry to hear of your friend’s passing. There’s never anything right that can be said, especially from people you don’t know, but please know that I feel for anyone who is grieving and I’m sorry you have to experience this.
Comment by: benjamin ady
38 03/7/08 10:59 PM | Comment Link |Kathy,
glad to hear your not part of the general concensus among the sunday morning church crowd. I apologize if I misunderstood you =)
Sorry for your loss of your friend! My mom is in the process of dying right now, so I’m dealing with some of that stuff too.
Yeah–you were right, I don’t get the holy spirit thing either.
I mean … how do you know, for instance, that the Muslim take on Jesus is wrong, and yours is right? Is the Holy Spirit part of that? How can you tell it’s the Holy Spirit, and not just your own thoughts/feelings/decisions?
And does “faith” in the John 4 chapter mean *obeying* what Jesus said? Or does it mean something else, to you?
Comment by: Helen
39 03/8/08 6:39 AM | Comment Link |Kathy, I’m sorry to hear about your friend.
I wouldn’t say Jesus ever made ME miserable - that was more a comment on what Rachelle said. (And maybe it’s not exactly what she said either).
On the other hand, trying to talk to Jesus was no longer a pleasant experience for me after I went through mental illness and it also doesn’t make sense since I came to have doubts about whether he exists.
I would rather get on with my life and consider him a good role model in various ways (based on the stories in the Bible, admittedly picking and choosing what parts of his behavior I like), whether he exists or not.
And if that’s not good enough, well, so be it - it’s the best I can manage. If there is a God who is not happy with a person’s best then he certainly isn’t a God of grace and love.
Comment by: Kathy
40 03/8/08 8:25 AM | Comment Link |Thanks to all for the condolences. She is in God’s arms now. In that I find peace.
Benjamin, I am so sorry about your mother. I will pray for her if you would like me to. Life just sucks sometimes doesn’t it?
You will need to be more specific than John 4. I am not sure which verse you are referring too. It is nearly impossible to explain faith to someone who has none. Nothing I say, nor any argument I make will be convincing to those who do not believe. I don’t believe in making scare tactics to goad you into believing. You either are a believer or you are not. I can sow a seed, but the rest is up to God, and either He will grow it or it falls to the side. Regarding the Holy Spirit I can only tell you this short story. A little boy was flying a kite one windy day. The kite flew high above the clouds and out of sight. A man stopped to watch and asked what he was doing. He replied, “I am flying a kite” the man in turn said, “How do you know the kite is even up there? you can’t see it” the boy smiled and said, “No, I cannot see it but I can feel the tug of the string on my hands” It is the same with the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, I can feel the tug of Him on my heart.
Comment by: Rachelle Mee-Chapman
41 03/8/08 8:34 AM | Comment Link |hi jim!
yep, having fun….and glad to have sparked such honest, seeking conversations.
i think one of my comments (about penal substitutionary models) is still awaiting moderation ‘tho…
heart,
r
Comment by: Helen
42 03/8/08 8:41 AM | Comment Link |Rachelle, I just un-moderated your other comment - sorry, I missed it earlier, somehow. It showed up at #17.
Comment by: Kathy
43 03/8/08 3:13 PM | Comment Link |Rachelle,
Please tell me where in the bible it says “Unconditional love”. I really don’t think I have come across it. Why did the message of salvation work for 2 thousand years and now it must be changed for this generation? Doesn’t the bible say that faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God? I do not see anywhere in your post where you back up anything you say with scripture, are you using Brian McLaren as your gospel? I urge all readers to see I Timothy 4-1, 2 Tim 1 :14 and Hebrews 10-29. I disagree with your views of the crucifixtion and to re-imagine it to serve mans desires is indeeed heresy. (I just put on the whole armour of God, because I know what is coming next)………..(
Comment by: Kathy
44 03/8/08 4:34 PM | Comment Link |Helen,
I am sorry about your problems. His Grace can be enough for you. I think that is all in His hands and no one else has a right to judge you. He will have the final say, not anyone else.
Comment by: Helen
45 03/9/08 6:16 AM | Comment Link |Thanks Kathy. I am very tired of being judged by people who haven’t experienced what I’ve experienced and can’t possibly understand the effects that has.
Comment by: Helen
46 03/9/08 6:21 AM | Comment Link |Rachelle wrote:
Thanks Rachelle.
Comment by: benjamin ady
47 03/9/08 11:11 AM | Comment Link |Okay–so question about this. I’m certainly neither a theologian nor a historian.
But surely this isn’t true? Has the “message of salvation” within the Christian church been the same for 2000 years? I mean it seems to me that it would be hard argue even that the “message of salvation” is … uniform across Christianity in the world at *present*. But … don’t we sort of have massive changes even from jesus to Paul. And then after whatever council they had where they decided what books should be officially included in the new testament. And then after the whole “by this sign conquer” thing. And then after the end of the middle ages with the enlightenment. ….
Hasn’t it been shifting and shifting right along to stay up with worldwide shifts in thinking, and to cross over national/cultural boundaries in thinking?
I’m not saying that’s bad. I think it’s kind of kewl.
Isn’t it a bit small-minded/arrogant to imagine that my own personal take, or my own smallish in-group’s take, on “the message of salvation” represents the “correct” one across all times and cultures?
Comment by: Kathy
48 03/9/08 12:46 PM | Comment Link |1st Corinth 1: 18-25 The message of the cross is foolish to those who are headed for destruction! But we who are being saved know it is the very power of God. 19 As the Scriptures say,
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise
and discard the intelligence of the intelligent.â€[e]
20 So where does this leave the philosophers,[BRIAN MCLAREN} the scholars,{POMOS] and the world’s brilliant debaters{this blog?} God has made the wisdom of this world look foolish. 21 Since God in his wisdom saw to it that the world would never know him through human wisdom, he has used our foolish preaching to save those who believe. 22 It is foolish to the Jews, who ask for signs from heaven. And it is foolish to the Greeks, who seek human wisdom. 23 So when we preach that Christ was crucified, the Jews are offended and the Gentiles say it’s all nonsense.
24 But to those called by God to salvation, both Jews and Gentiles,[f] Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 This foolish plan of God is wiser than the wisest of human plans, and God’s weakness is stronger than the greatest of human strength.
The Reformation brought us back to the original message of the gospel that had been changed by the false Apostate Church in the dark & Middle Ages. It seems to me another Apostate Church is taking us off course again.
Comment by: Kathy
49 03/9/08 1:59 PM | Comment Link |I am very tired of being judged by people who haven’t experienced what I’ve experienced and can’t possibly understand the effects that has.
Same here Helen. We do have somthing in common huh? Hang in there with me! ; )
Comment by: Helen
50 03/9/08 7:01 PM | Comment Link |Thanks Kathy. I’m hanging in there with you - I’m not going anywhere :)
Comment by: Kathy
51 03/9/08 7:15 PM | Comment Link |good deal Helen.
Comment by: benjamin ady
52 03/9/08 10:49 PM | Comment Link |That is so fascinating. I suspect that the Roman Catholics were just as buys calling the Protestants “apostate” as vice versa. Meanwhile, from my POV, if we are replaying the story of the reformation, it sure looks to me like the role of the Roman Catholics is now being played by the established church, both Protestant, Orthodox, and RC, while the role of the reformers is now being played by the Emergent Church.
Go Figure. I’m fascinated by the black and white thinking. I used to do that *so* strongly. The false apostate church, be it the RC church of the dark middle ages, or the emergent church of the late 20th century, had it all wrong, and were leading us away from the true message of Jesus. Only “we” had it right. I’m *so* glad to be out of that thinking. It leaves me so much more room to engage people. =)
Comment by: Rachelle Mee-Chapman
53 03/10/08 3:40 AM | Comment Link |Hmmmm…When people start talking about putting on ‘armor,’ the conversation has shifted from one of dialogue to one of debate.
I thought we were sharing our experiences and questions, not engaging in battle.
I don’t want to do battle.
Kathy, I see that scripture as the infalliable inspired word of God is of great import to you. So, I will recommend again the book The Scandal of the Cross, which closely follows scripture, illustrating the many different ways the cross/rez was interpreted even by the NT writers. Fascinating stuff, and lots of chapter and verse references.
Benjamin, good historical assesment in comment 47. In seminary, this was one of my favorite topics — church history and how cultural and political events influenced the development of church practice and doctrine. Fascinating stuff.
Helen, thanks for all you do to keep the dialogue going.
Much Shalom!
Rachelle
Comment by: Kathy
54 03/10/08 6:49 AM | Comment Link |Rachelle-the comment “putting on the armour” was to protect my self and was tongue in cheek (you had to be there earlier). I find it odd that you have ignored what the scripture actually says.(comment 48) Although I have found this true with emergent thinking people. They never use the bible, which is the authoritative word of God. So what authority is used for the “new” teaching? Brian McLaren’s philosphy? I would also like to know exactly how you are explaining the crucifixiton and how you will explain away the blood. What type of new imagry for the cross?
Comment by: Kathy
55 03/10/08 6:57 AM | Comment Link |Benjamin,
That was kind of a personal attack , I was surprised it came from you. Did the devil make you do it? ;)
Comment by: benjamin ady
56 03/10/08 8:37 AM | Comment Link |Kathy,
… I’m sorry my words felt like a personal attack. That certainly wasn’t my intent.
Who is “the devil”? I’m fairly certain no one made me write what I wrote–just li’l ole me.
I’m intrigued that you see a … sort of lack of use of scripture in the emergent movement, and instead a use of Brian McClaren’s philosophy. Because in my interactions with Brian, he has always taken me straight to scripture, generally against my internal chagrin. He has this strange way of pointing out scripture verses that everyone else seems to ignore, and saying, “Well, then what does *this* mean?” I could give you an example or two if you want. I get this sense from him, as I do from dear George Macdonald (who was very much emergent, even if he was was 100 years ahead of his time), that he is *totally* both enamored of and versed in the Scripture, and also, perhaps, interested in rescuing the Scripture from the rigid orthodoxy within which the church has chained it.
Comment by: Kathy
57 03/10/08 8:51 AM | Comment Link |Really Benjamin? Brian McLaren says we need a 5 year “conversation” on the subject of homosexuality. I think the bible is pretty clear on that subject, rigid or not, like it or not. What scripture does he call out for that one? I think it was the “black and white” comment the devil made you say ;0
Comment by: benjamin ady
58 03/10/08 1:31 PM | Comment Link |Kathy,
So … in your opinion, the Bible both: A. Presents a clear viewpoint on homosexuality and B. makes a fairly high priority out of iterating/promoting this viewpoint?
I disagree =).
People have used the Bible to argue for slavery, various amounts/lengths of facial hair, head hair, the use of alcohol, smoking tobacco, having sex during menstruation, eating seafood,
the list could go on. My point is that what issues we do or don’t use the bible to try to promote or inhibit is *at least* as much a matter of current/local culture as it is about what the bible actually makes a priority out of.
Comment by: Kathy
59 03/10/08 3:23 PM | Comment Link |Love to all. Helen I will keep you on my prayer list..(forever)
Even when I say “who is Helen?” God will know.
I only hope that those who have read these posts study God’s word and let Him speak to you and do not take any mans word for truth, the emergent and post modern church is a false gospel and deceiving many. There will always be a remnant of the true church of Christ,even if we end up hiding in our homes together to seek God’s truth. It will not be the Muslims that will be beheading Christians, it will be Christians beheading Christians. I have said all that can be said to try to persuade you, so I will move on to more fulfilling and Christ centered things.
Isaiah 8-20
Comment by: Helen
60 03/10/08 3:43 PM | Comment Link |Kathy thanks for caring.
Comment by: benjamin ady
61 03/10/08 4:10 PM | Comment Link |The difference being, of course, that one can get on a plane and fly to the annual OTM conference and physically meet Helen, and shake her hand, and enjoy her company over a glass of beer or wine =)
What if the purpose of conversing isn’t to try to convince? What if the purpose of conversing is to try to become better people through the use of dialogue? What if creating/defending relational space is more important than defending our own take on the truth? What if Jesus was right, and it’s the peacemakers who end up getting to be called the children of God? (I only ask because Helen is one of the more adept peacemakers I’ve had the pleasure to interact with over the years.)
Kathy. I honestly hope your comment number 59 doesn’t mean you are leaving our conversation. If you are, I am saddened. I have grown to genuinely like you, and you have helped me both realize and begin to correct some of my stereotypes about/biases against … a group I call “fundamentalist” Christians. In any case–I mean even if you are leaving, I want to say thank you for jumping in and sharing your self and your viewpoint. You rock. =)
Comment by: Rachelle Mee-Chapman
62 03/11/08 1:52 AM | Comment Link |Thanks Benjamin. That’s what I was trying to say when I bowed out of the debate. :-)
Comment by: Kathy
63 03/11/08 12:54 PM | Comment Link |This is why I left, everytime I bring in scripture or ask a legitimate question, I am judged for my thinking and belief.. When did debate become a bad thing?? Apparantly you have no answers for my questions, because your savior Brian Mclaren has not told you yet.
I did not consider to be in debate but “dialog”. I am glad you are not teaching my children , otherwise they would never be allowed to ask a question without being made to feel like an idiot.
bye
Comment by: benjamin ady
64 03/11/08 1:51 PM | Comment Link |… Kathy
Ok, that’s reasonable. What I hear you saying is you’d prefer straight up “answers” in response to your questions, rather than more questions in response to your questions. Am I getting that right?
So a list of questions you asked:
Okay, he actually said
In that article, he “calls out” Colossians chapter 4 and Ephesians chapter 3.
You asked
No
You asked
I’m thinking that all these people you mention would consider themselves on your side against the
“wisdom of the wise” and “the intelligence of the intelligent”.
Again, I’m sorry you’ve felt judged. One of the things that OTM blogs, I believe, are trying to do is to create a space where folks with opposite ideas about things can talk without being judged. I think we tend to think rather well of ourselves because we don’t engage in the sort of firebombing/personal destruction which happens on lots of other web sites where people who disagree don’t so much “talk” as “yell” at each other. It seems to me that to some degree we have failed in this with you, as you are left with a sort of cumulative feeling of “being judged”, so maybe we’re not doing as well as we had hoped. We can only continue to work on this, try to improve, try to increase our ability to listen and share kindly. Thank you for your help with this =)
Comment by: April Terry
65 03/12/08 3:59 PM | Comment Link |I have been reading this progression of posts for sometime now and have kept largely silent because I enjoyed the discussion between Kathy and everyone else, but now I feel somewhat compelled to say a few things.
First of all, I would like to say that I love the Emergent movement, and I think there are a lot of misunderstandings about what the emergent movement is all about. I have followed it for a long time, and in most case (not all), I have found that the central tenets of Christianity are still held by most in the emergent community. The difference seems to be in the view of how we should relate to those outside of the Christian community and how we should experience and share our faith. I believe that those in this movement desire for Jesus’ message to be retained and enhanced, but also to allow for other ideologies and philosophies without screaming heresy at each turn. Discourse is the beginning of enlightenment, and we need it in order to keep our faith well-tuned. The Jewish people have understood this for centuries as they debated back and forth over the Torah.
Secondly, I would like to say that I disagree with Rachelle in her view that the crucifix is an image of guilt. I believe that the brutal view of Christ on the cross is as important as the view of Christ coming down from the cross and that it resonates with different people for different reasons. I believe that both images of Christ should be part of the Christian experience. At the same time, I also resonate with Rachelle’s feeling that we should remember to bring Jesus down from the cross. If we do not metabolize the meaning of the empty tomb, we fall short of a full understanding of the redemption story.
Finally, I would like to thank Kathy for hanging in there with everyone. I, for one, think that we need this type of discourse in order to understand what it means to have faith in today’s environment.
Comment by: Troy
66 03/20/08 8:19 AM | Comment Link |Growing up crazy fundamentalist sure did a number on me, and on how I hear the whole Christian vocabulary, religious-speak, especially of a Protestant Evanglical variety. I’m glad that Kathy stuck with it and that there was discussion–there is not enough of this, and stereotypes abound–though I wince and have great anxiety whenever I hear that -speak spoken; brings me back to a very frightened state.
Comment by: benjamin ady
67 03/21/08 12:08 AM | Comment Link |Troy
I can identify with your fear. It’s not so intense now for me as it was 2 years ago–but yeah–the whole take my breath away, mouth dry, hands trembling, get me the FUCK outta here fear with regards to some of the fundamentalist stuff/people I grew up with–I know about that.
Comment by: Claudia
68 03/22/08 8:33 AM | Comment Link |Question for Troy and Benjamin (and others with similar backgrounds): What is it that makes Christian-speak, Christian-speak? Is it the vocabulary? Is it the tone? Is it the content?
I really am curious (and, I must add, mad with admiration for anyone who can work their way free of their upbringing just by using their heads and their hearts). I’ve had only fairly superficial exposure to fundies–I graduated from a high school in a town that had 2,100 residents and 21 churches, but I’ve never been really inundated as you would growing up in the tradition–and as an outsider, the thing that most strikes me about fundie-speak is this pattern of tautologism and circular/nonlinear/inconsistent reasoning I hear in it. (Not that I don’t hear it a lot of other places, too, but it seems to be really prevalent and almost celebrated in this context.)
What is it for you guys? What is it specifically about the -speak that triggers the recognition you mention?
Comment by: Helen
69 03/22/08 4:25 PM | Comment Link |Claudia, I’m not comfortable with the term fundie-speak, but anyway, the thing I find most frustrating is interacting with people whose beliefs about me are based on what they believe the Bible says about me rather than my own first-hand experience or how other people perceive me.
So if they think the Bible says I’m arrogant, I’m arrogant, period. Even if I’m not aware of having an attitude of superiority and even if others don’t perceive me as arrogant.
I guess what I’m saying is, these people are happy to let an interpretation of a book define who I am and that really bothers me.
They tend to be people who quote the Bible but it’s not the quotes per se; it’s the invalidation.
Comment by: benjamin ady
70 03/22/08 8:09 PM | Comment Link |Yeah right =p I hope you weren’t imagining that to be the case with me. “free” is one of the those *really large words*. =)
Helen touches on it. Gosh it’s hard to get at, when you ask right out like that.
My very religious in-laws told me over the weekend, in a conversation we were having, that they don’t want Obama to be president because he’s black, and they don’t want Hillary to be president to be president because women are not qualified to lead in such a capacity.
The pastor of the church I grew up in told me, as he put “Between me, you, and fence post” (little did he know it would show up on this blog, all these years later) (haha, I laugh with gloating glee, rubbing my hands like the count from sesame street), that he thought all the civil right legislation was just plain wrong, and in his opinion a business owner should be allowed to hire or fire people based on their race, or anything else they damn well please (I’m pretty sure he didn’t say “damn”, actually)
There’s this absolute assurance that we are right, and everyone else is wrong. So statements start out with, for instance, “Well *God* says ________”.
Couple with this there’s lip service to the idea that we are sinful. But our sins are most certainly the lesser sins of gluttony and arrogance, not the worser sins of adultery, wine-bibbing, or homosexuality.
Making categorical statements, including the use of the word “all, like
There’s no nuance. My pastor used to say “‘All’ means ‘All’, that’s all ‘all’ means.”
This
Period. The Bible says it, so it’s true. My mind is now closed.
This last just *totally* trips the switch for me. Truth is truth, it means what I say or think or believe it means, absolutely, and if you are interested in imagining that it could mean something else, then you are in a very very very dangerous place. heretic. We are certainly *not* allowed to reimagine it. If we do, it’s a lie.
It’s nearly an inability to realize that even if there *is* absolute truth, any grasp we might have on it is just like–our own little particularish grasp on it. And therefore it might be okay, or even advisable, to let go our grasp (GASP!), and grab hold somewhere else.
A leader in the church I grew up in used to say regularly, “Well, if you and I disagree about something, then at least one of us is wrong.” There’s no possibility that opposite things could both be true, and opposite POV’s could both be right.
I’ve carried on long enough =) I hope that starts to touch on an answer to your question.
Comment by: Claudia
71 03/23/08 8:39 AM | Comment Link |Sincerest apologies, and thanks, Helen, for alerting me to that–I wasn’t certain what good “short-hand” would be for what I was trying to get at (respectfully, but probably unintentionally falling short of that out of ignorance). And thanks for the insight (from both you and Benjamin). It sounds like trying to get at the core of it is like peeling an onion–complete with crying.
I know I’m completely off-topic from the original post topic–of course I know I’m forgiven, especially today–but on the flip side of this question: I would guess that the thing churchies hear in atheist-speak that defines atheist-speak (or, you know, blasphemy) (kidding!) for them is nihilism: “There is no God, and therefore the universe that you inhabit is terrifyingly chaotic and and meaningless place, and your life is also therefore meaningless.”
Is that about right? April, my SoCal sister, for instance–as an “outsider” to atheism, do you hear a consistent quality in the language that atheists (or atheists OTE, etc.) use in discourse about religion that parallels the consistency in Christian language that Troy and Benjamin shared their reaction to? (Diagram that sentence, I dare you all, but I swear the grammar’s solid.) And if you do, how would you characterize it?
Comment by: Claudia
72 03/23/08 8:45 AM | Comment Link |Ah, c’mon, Benjamin–freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose.
(And there’s the Boomer upbringing that I can’t get away from, right there.)
Comment by: Helen
73 03/23/08 8:49 AM | Comment Link |Claudia, sometimes we say Christianese, but that’s more about words - and as your question explored, it’s not just words that bother us but the underlying presuppositions we encounter.
Yes, you’re right about the crying - the memories can be painful. Not so much for me, I think, as for people who grew up in invalidating Christian environments. It’s easier to process things as an adult than as a child.
Anyway, what makes you think atheists are forgiven today? ;-)
Comment by: benjamin ady
74 03/23/08 11:17 AM | Comment Link |I hadn’t heard that. This freedom seems a poorer freedom than the *very large word* I had imagined.