During Spokane Faith & Values February "Coffee Talk" we discussed the issue of Violence and the Sacred. I found myself on the fringes of the conversation, but out of respect for the many different beliefs in the room, I chose to listen more than talk, since I have this venue to present my thoughts on the subject. I am fully aware that my view is not held by many, but I wanted to share it for the sake of my own conscience on the matter. I have found deep and lasting transformation in the gospel as it's been taught and practiced to me and I pray it will bear fruit in anyone looking for grace, mercy and eternal life found in and through the life, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ.
"For I am not ashamed of this Good News about Christ. It is the power of God at work, saving everyone who believes — the Jew first and also the Gentile. This Good News tells us how God makes us right in his sight," Romans 1:16-17.
Christianity I understand, is a faith that emerges from a story of fall and redemption. That fall is connected to what the Bible calls sin. Sin is the root from which all suffering and death has grown. Sin is a cycle that perpetuates through human choice and response in word and deed from our very beginnings.
God was the first one to shed blood in the story of the fall. Humanity sinned and was left naked in the realization of their fallen state and God killed an animal and covered Adam and Eve's nakedness with the skins of those slain. From the first moments in the sacred text, known as the Bible, we see God's law, human disobedience, sin, resulting in death and a covering provided from God. This sacrificial concept became know and substitution and identification.
Death has always been connected to sin, it is the ultimate consequence. But even after God sacrificed an animal, spilt blood and covered his children's shame, they were expelled from the life of Eden. Animal blood was not enough to remove sin, it was, like the skins, a covering, until a pure sacrifice could be made for sin. Most evangelical Christians believe that Jesus was that sacrifice for all the world's sin.
The Old Testament law, given by God to Moses, required a visceral experience with the results and remedy for sin:
Leviticus 1:2-5 says:
“Give the following instructions to the people of Israel. When you present an animal as an offering to the Lord, you may take it from your herd of cattle or your flock of sheep and goats. If the animal you present as a burnt offering is from the herd, it must be a male with no defects. Bring it to the entrance of the Tabernacle so you may be accepted by the Lord. Lay your hand on the animal’s head, and the Lord will accept its death in your place to purify you, making you right with him. Then slaughter the young bull in the Lord’s presence, and Aaron’s sons, the priests, will present the animal’s blood by splattering it against all sides of the altar that stands at the entrance to the Tabernacle."
"For the life of the body is in its blood. I have given you the blood on the altar to purify you, making you right with the Lord. It is the blood, given in exchange for a life, that makes purification possible," Leviticus 17:11.
When each person laid their hands on those sacrifices, the reality of the consequences of their sins could not be ignored. The gravity of sin was gruesome and the truth of the need for a substitute was played out in the divine drama in such sacrifices. A picture of the coming 'lamb of God' who would take away the sin of the world (John 1:29).
Jesus assumed the fulfillment of these former types and shadows and in his last moments of life, pointed to the central truth of his life giving act on the cross in Matthew 28:26-28:
"As they were eating, Jesus took some bread and blessed it. Then he broke it in pieces and gave it to the disciples, saying, 'Take this and eat it, for this is my body.' And he took a cup of wine and gave thanks to God for it. He gave it to them and said, “Each of you drink from it, for this is my blood, which confirms the covenant between God and his people. It is poured out as a sacrifice to forgive the sins of many.'"
This covenantal ritual, became one of the central symbols of believing community. The cup witnesses to the cross and its final act of forgiveness, the end of blood spilling for sacrifice, the ultimate cleansing and pardon of sin and the act of union with God in faith and practice.
As Christians, we gather around the symbols of the blood and body of Jesus. The cross is at the core of our message and its reconciling act is unashamedly proclaimed in the wine and bread that we share together in worship.
The blood is one of the three witnesses (Spirit, Water, Blood: 1 John 5:6-12) believing Christian's spiritual lives revolve around as a testifying community. These blood drinkers and flesh eaters proclaim the Lord's death until he comes in their gathering around the table. This is our passover meal, our sacrificed lamb (Romans 3:23-26) we believe the blood of this lamb has been applied to the door posts of our heart and that eternal death will pass by us. We know that without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins (Hebrews 9:22).
I am part of an ancient apocalyptic community who not only looks back to the work of Christ but looks forward to the return of Christ. Where a time of judgment awaits, (Hebrews 9:27-28). A judgment based on one's acceptance of this sacrifice and the unfolding of the full salvation of those redeemed who longingly await the coming of our Lord.
This is why I am unashamed to claim by faith the blood and body of Jesus as the saving act of salvation and the resurrection of Christ as my confirmation on God's acceptance of that ultimate and final sacrifice.
Sam Fletcher | Feb 5, 2013 | 4:47pm
If you’re not already one, I think you’re a fine mystic, and I admire you for it. It’s not my calling though, clearly! :-)
bruce | Feb 6, 2013 | 1:56pm
Thanks for the post Eric. Have you ever read or considered reading what some of the higher critics and historians such as Karen Armstrong have to say on these topics? The information presented by the biblical critics is becoming increasingly more palatable to the general public. You may want to be aware of their take on the historical Jesus and some of the ideas you’ve presented.
Eric Blauer | Feb 6, 2013 | 2:11pm
Higher cristicm is just that a discussion of whose scholarship or interpretive grid is over the other. I find much of the work dismissive of equal scholarship coming from conservative vs progressive minds.
Sam Fletcher | Feb 6, 2013 | 3:06pm
“I find much of the work dismissive of equal scholarship coming from conservative vs progressive minds.”
I agree. For the last four hundred-ish years, progressive scholarship has run the playground and kicked sand in the face of anyone they didn’t want in their sandbox. I find it pretty childish, and unproductive as far as making society more livable for people (inclusive of gays, minorities, and women, who by virtue of their birth have had to put up with some real crap from both secular and religious people over the decades). I think the really interesting laboratories of future-ready faith are happening organically in communities. (Maybe even communities like SpokaneFAVs!)
Not really trying to make a point. I’m not trying to be anti-intellectual at all. I just love that some people are figuring out that learning and scholarship can have as much to do with action, ritual, community and emotion as it has to do with discerning material fact.
bruce | Feb 6, 2013 | 6:04pm
“I find much of the work dismissive of equal scholarship coming from conservative vs progressive minds.”
So does that mean to ‘dismiss their work back’ so to speak? Yes, academics can often be arrogant and dismissive of anything that disagrees with them. Does that mean you are unable to digest their views and take it under consideration? Are you equally dismissive of those who have different views of Christianity and the historical Jesus?
Eric Blauer | Feb 7, 2013 | 8:35am
We all have to make choices about which paths if scholarship we choose for guidance.
Part of that discernment process is assessing where paths lead. What’s the end result of a certain scholars motives? What’s the fruit?
For me I find a lot of progressive scholarship undermines faith, is corrosive to trust in scriptures, promotes lawlessness, exalts human reason over biblical faith, confuses gender roles, destabilizes community.
To me its proven much of its unhealthiness by its effects in the churches and movements that sit under its teaching.
I love to read all kinds of books and people. I’m very open to others but that doesn’t mean I’m uncommitted in doctrine.
Sam Fletcher | Feb 7, 2013 | 10:20am
“Part of that discernment process is assessing where paths lead. What’s the end result of a certain scholars motives? What’s the fruit?”
I’m not intending this as criticism, but more of a gentle nudge, if that makes sense, because I often feel the same way (and I spent years in academia and continue to consume scholarly books and essays regularly). But I think you’re being shortsighted. The movement to study Christianity in a scholarly way came after centuries of Europeans witnessing the back and forth of grisly horror that their religion created — massacres, stake-burnings, public executions (that old-school Spanish Inquisition crap happened outdoors in public squares, not in moist dungeons like it’s portrayed today). We Americans don’t usually have to contend with some of the more ripe fruit of Christendom and we’re pretty lucky for it. I think it’s a luxury to be able to sit back and say, “Well, what’s really the meaning of all this scholarly talk?” We can’t scoff til we’ve been in their shoes, and what the scholars of Europe were trying to do when they founded that tradition was mitigate the horror of their society.
Still, I get your point. I don’t think questioning, confusion, and admitting that one doesn’t have all the answers are really that unhealthy though.
“To me its proven much of its unhealthiness by its effects in the churches and movements that sit under its teaching.”
As someone who spends much of my professional life in mainline, liberal churches, I have to ask, what do you mean by this? Unhealthiness?
bruce | Feb 7, 2013 | 5:13pm
Thank you Eric.
Tom Schmidt | Feb 9, 2013 | 10:40am
Thank you ,Eric, for your comments. You seem to follow the orthodox views and the more recent viewpoint of Jesus as a substitutional sacrifice, a viewpoint that wasn’t full articulated until the 14th centuary of braodly accepted in the US until about 180 years ago. The most important question for me, since its answer determines a lot of how I see myself in relationship with my fellow creatures, is, What does this (your) view say about the nature of the One God, in whose image we are made? I can’t accept a violent God who accepts blood sacrifice and who would kill a son with torture and a brutle public execution to remove my sins and “wash” me clean. Most of the sources that you quoted originated in some of the Early Christians and their often contentious disagreements about the meaning of the Crucifiction and resurection. There were several different viewpoints then, and it took about 300 years before the western groups accepted , under Romes carrot and stick to one creed. They then brutily put down and destroyed discenting groups. Hope we can aviot that without resorting to a viscious, blood thirsty God.
Be that as it may, I ADMIRE YOUR WORK AND SUSPECT THAT BEHIND ALL THE THEORIZING, IN EACH OF US, LIES A DEEPER APPRECIATION OF A LOVING, NONVIOLENT GOD.
garywdyer@msn.com | Feb 9, 2013 | 5:40pm
A sacrifice…it is a symbol of the faith story. Is it part of the history of atonement? and for what? disobedience of Adam or my separation from God? The books left out of the canonized Bible, the studies of the historical Jesus and other literary, analytical notions leave the main question of, and journey of, faith to us to answer. Certain long-held church doctrines and their particular underpinnings may be weakened by these academics or even the history of the early church, leaving each one to wrestle with what you believe or are willing to stomach.
Add Your Comment