Third Millennium Church

Salvation

The first result to come from our application of forest theology is a new understanding of salvation. Salvation is what we find Jesus talking about most, with ethics coming in a close second. So it's good that our analysis has led us first to what Jesus considered most important. Our view of salvation is based upon the gospels, rather than the epistles. This is an important shift, and is based on our hermeneutical premise that the bible is a human book, complete with mistakes and biases and false teachings, that we must sift for information relevant to our culture and world. We find Paul's doctrine of salvation to be philosophically inconsistent, and spiritually rather cold. A legal contract between you and God with all sorts of riders attached does not seem to be what Jesus had in mind when he spoke of eternal life.

Instead we look to Jesus himself for our theory of salvation, and what we find is that salvation is living a life imbued with the presence of God. The early church did not have the New Testament, because they did not need it. They had Jesus. Those of us who follow him all have him as well. We do not need a priest or pastor or teacher to stand between us and interpret his words for us. We can hear directly from him daily.

Jesus told everyone who asked about salvation to follow him, to trust in him, to do the things that he does. Jesus demanded action, not a signature on an insurance policy. The action we must take is to follow his example. We are to treat people the way we want to be treated, love God, and forgive those who harm us. Notice that "following" is not perfection. We can never be perfect, but all God asks of us is to be on the right path. The language Jesus uses is that of a master and an apprentice, or a teacher and a disciple. The apprentice will not produce masterwork, but she can be learning, improving, and growing. This is what Jesus requires of us, that we be his apprentices, his disciples. We try, in our own frail, human way, to do what he does. It's really that simple.

Let me try to explain how we can spot salvation in a person. There are two kinds of people in the world, givers and takers. Takers are the ones like the Pharisees who Jesus condemns. These people live their lives only for themselves, and they take from those around them (emotionally, financially, and physically) in order to build themselves up. These are the assholes of the world. You all know some of them. Some of these people are sick, and with help can leave their life of destruction. Many of these people claim to be Christians but their lust for power and control over others shows that they are not. The second kind of person is the giver. The giver builds up the people around him. The giver is generous financially and brings joy and life to other people. Givers create, build, and raise.

Since God's greatest creation is human beings, how we treat other human beings determines whether we are saved or not. Those who are followers of God become better and better givers. Whenever we harm another person, we are acting directly against God.

What this means in practical terms for each person is different. Some people will be drawn to helping others financially, some to help others emotionally, and some physically. Some people will simply be there with an ear to listen to the problems people have, while others might actually work in a job that lets them help people. There are millions of ways to follow the master. God will call each of us to a different life, because God loves diversity. But the life of salvation is marked by its outward flow, into the lives of other people, rather than an inward flow.

People who follow Jesus are marked by kindness, generosity, care, honesty, joy, and love. Notice I said marked. We are not perfectly kind, nor always generous, nor honest at every moment. We are still human, but our striving and our direction is toward improvement. Thus, there is no guilt necessary. Legalistic religion rolls right off us. Our salvation is secure as long as we follow him.

Spot On - The Atonement Problem

I have been struggling with a question that has bothered me since I became a Christian. Lately I've been seeing it as part of a key to answering some of the larger questions I have. The problem I have is with the Atonement. In much (though not all) of orthodox main-line Christianity, the Sacrificial Atonement of Christ is the essential truth that Christ brought to us. There are various versions, but basically the idea is that we all sin (or Adam did) and the penalty of sin is death. Christ, by paying this penalty for us (sacrifical) allows us to be reconciled with God (atonement). So Christ's death was necessary because it allows those of us who've "accepted it" (and what this means varies with denomination) to be reunited with God.

Except, as in much of what the church teaches, there is a deep underlying flaw in this logic. Follow with me please. God is supposed to be the creator of the universe. He is not bound by the universe, neither by time nor space, but exists independently outside of it, eternal and perfect. This is a God I can get into. Much better than the petty human gods people normally create.

1. God is perfect and good, loving and all-powerful.
2. We sinned (either through Adam or each of us in our daily lives).
3. The penalty of sin is death (eternal death, that is, hell).
4. Without Christ's sacrifice we all rightfully burn in hell for eternity.

What is the problem with this logic? The problem is number 3. Why is the penalty for sin death? If we assume the kind of God who means something, then it must come from him. Why did God create a universe in which he knew sin would be commonplace and then make the penalty for sin, death? Let's attempt an answer and I'll show why it has problems.

The thing that makes God interesting to me is that he is a consciousness. In a universe of matter and energy, consciousness is a curiosity, no more. In a universe driven by a conscious being like God, consciousness becomes the most precious thing in the universe. This accords well with the way we think of ourselves. We are, of course, finite and God is infinite, but we are still more similar to God than we are to the dust. This gives us hope.

We might argue that since God designed the entire universe to create consciousnesses, that the harming of another consciousness would be the greatest crime, opposing directly God's intent for the universe. If we consider what Jesus said about treating other people the way we'd like to be treated as the essential definition of right action, then sin is mistreating people. Thus, sin, according to Jesus, is mistreating the very thing that God made the whole universe for, other people.  The penalty for this great crime is death. This seems to make sense.

But it only seems to make sense. If the penalty for harming another consciousness is the death of that consciousness, then God is violating his own law. Take murder. I murder someone. Say they did not accept the atonement, so when I kill them they go to hell. Now I die and for my sin God sends me to hell. Now instead of one lost consciousness, there are two. God's law has exacerbated his own problem. It has in no way protected consciousnesses, but actually increased the number of lost consciousnesses. In fact, since sin seems to be the normal way of life here (which God knew), he seems to have doomed his project from the beginning.

Some will say I'm crazy for trying to figure out God, that it is a mystery. That God's ways are not man's ways. It would seem, however, that at least at the central point of all theology God's methods would make more sense. To me most views of the atonement have Jesus appearing as a band-aid on the big screw up of God's creation, as if God didn't realize his creation would sin morning, noon, and night. So Jesus is sent to pay the penalty for everyone. Except he doesn't pay your penalty if you don't say the right prayer or belong to the right church or have a proper theology or allow mixed marriages or don't vote republican. Or whatever the hot topic that sends people to hell is today. The menu changes constantly, and you never know what the sin d'jour will be. It certainly won't be what the pastor is doing in the back room, however.

So what if the penalty for sin wasn't death? What if Paul was just an interpreter of Jesus, just like any other interpreter. We know that most of the apostles that walked with Jesus disagreed with his theology. We also know that Luther, when he moved Romans to preeminence among the books of the bible, threw out James because it disagreed with his argument. That is where this theology comes from. It comes from a priest who several hundred years ago created a theology in opposition to the Roman Catholic church, which required payment for sins with gold. What if Luther's theology went too far in the other direction? What if Paul were just a man who saw God one way, and James was a man who saw God another way? In other words, what if their interpretations of Jesus' work are no more valid than yours or mine?

Jesus did not ask the thief on the cross if he accepted the sacrificial atonement. Nor did he ask the woman caught in adultery. Nor did he mention it to the Samartian woman at the well. In fact, Jesus doesn't use the vocabulary of atonement. He often says things like his followers "believe in him", "will have eternal life in him", "follow him", "do what he says", etc. For a good section of uninterrupted speaking by Jesus, check out John 17. There is definitely a promise of eternal life for those who believe in him, but there is nothing about a sacrificial atonement. Even John 3.16 mentions no such thing. If the sacrificial atonement is so important, why doesn't Jesus mention it? Only those who come after Jesus talk about a sacrifice. Peter and Paul mostly. James doesn't make much of it either, and he was the head of the church.

What does Jesus talk about? He talks about treating people the way we want to be treated. He talks about loving God and communicating with God. He talks about forsaking the world and its treasures to find the true treasure in God.

So what if Luther was wrong, or, at least went too far? What if we remove the sacrificial atonement from Christianity? The sacrificial atonement is just one theory of Christ's death that Christians have held. We think it is the only view because the church has immersed us in the view. But other Christians through the ages have held different views. What if we take an examplar view of the death of Christ? Put simply the examplar view is that Christ's death is an example to us, not a sacrifice for us. Christ died to the world physically to show that we must die to the world spiritually. To follow Christ is to follow him in his death. That is, we no longer value what the world values, we value what God values. This view accords well with the way Jesus himself talked of his death, and especially the idea of following Christ.

But without the atonement, doesn't the universal law of sin condemn us all to hell? In short, no. Such fears are engendered by a church that wants you to depend upon them as a mediator with God, to let them control your lives and take your money. But do not be mistaken. Hell is a real thing. It is reserved for those who mistreat people without repentence, who claim to follow Christ and then ignore most of what Christ teaches, and who stand in the way of those who want God. To those of us who strive after God, to hear his voice and to treat people rightly, only heaven awaits. And no silly prayer or communion or statement of faith can change that.

Forest Theology

If, as we argued in the last article, we should model theology on a forest instead of an orchard, how would we go about doing it? A forest is not pure chaos. The law of gravity determines how strong vines must be to climb up a tree. The law of energy conservation determines how much leaf area a tree needs to get its sustenance from photosynthesis. The laws of thermodynamics determine how fast a rotten log rots. Thus the chaos is built upon a framework of simple elementary laws. In the same way, I want to posit a minimal set of natural laws of theology that will frame how our theologies develop. And I say theologies because every person creates their own.

If you analyze in the New Testament what Jesus says and does, as opposed to what one disciple named Paul claims he says and does, you will begin to see a clear theme in his teaching: how do you treat others? Or, to put it more positively, you should treat other people the way you want to be treated. This is important because it gives us a measure to determine if we our really hearing from God or not. Since God created and loves all people, any theology that mistreats people does not come from God. You are instead hearing the selfish human voice of the mediators, of those who want to stand between you and God and tell you how to live your life. Look at the story of Zaccheus in scripture, a man who mistreated others but who turns from his ways and begins treating people rightly. Or the thief on the cross who knew he had mistreated people, repents, and is promised a seat in heaven. Or the Pharisees who abuse and mistreat people and thus receive the only cruel words Christ ever uttered. Clearly, those who harm or otherwise use and abuse other human beings are working against God. Let's put it in a form more like a natural law.

The Golden Law: Any theology that results in the mistreatment of other people does not come from God.

Notice that it is teleological in nature, that is, it is defined in terms of the ends or results of theology. This is good, because it keeps us from having a theology of good intentions that ends up hurting people anyway. Intention does not matter. What matters is our actions.

The first law put a limit on what we can take for theology, but it gets us no closer to how we develop that theology in the first place. That's what the second law does. I've argued that God never wanted us to have a mediator, that his goal from the beginning was to be in intimate communication with each of us. But we block that communication in many ways. Often, we are too busy listening to our own inner voice to hear God speaking. Or, we find a million ways to distract ourselves. Perhaps we are afraid to hear his voice, because we have been trained by the church to think that God only accepts those who are perfect. The key, however, to building a forest theology is hearing from God. It is the only way. We are protected from the "Son of Sam" effect by the Golden Law. We have nothing to fear.

The Law of the Word: All theology is built from the words of God, spoken to us in various ways.

God speaks not only through the scripture, but in a thousand different ways as well. Sometimes it is the voice of a friend or parent. Perhaps he speaks through nature to us, or art, or meditation. It really doesn't matter. God has used all manner of communication in the past, and he continues to do so. We integrate all these sources into our own personal theology.

But a theology does nothing if it remains random thoughts about God. Our theology must be put into practice on a daily basis. If you think God wants you to help the poor, but you never give to the poor or visit the local food bank or help out at the local soup kitchen, then you don't really believe that God wants you to help the poor.

The Law of Action: All Theology results in action.

Finally, as God said in Genesis, it is not good for a person to be alone. And though you could argue that the fourth law is really one aspect of the Law of Action, I want to emphasize its importance. People who keep themselves apart from other people get freaky. This is not healthy. The problem is the church lies to us, and makes us think that we can only interact with those who have a similar faith to ours. To everyone else, we must proselytize. This is crazy, becuase there is no "one correct faith" anywhere in the world. Thus, anytime we interact with a person who follows God we can learn something.
The Law of Interaction: Any theology that results in people separating themselves from others who have differing theologies does not come from God.

This law protects us from becoming insular, creating our own little sect that condemns everyone else to hell. It also allows us to hear how God is speaking to other people. Remember, theology is a forest, not an orchard. God may stress to you that you help the poor, while to someone else he stresses being gentle and kind in personal relationships.

These are the four laws that I believe allow us to craft a theology for ourselves. The words we hear from God will allow us to live a life of constant growth and communication with God. Our theology will transform as we are transformed by it, because it results in action, not a dead page.