Jesus and redemption
|
I’m currently wrestling with what Jesus’ teaching about the kingdom of G-d means for us today, in terms of how we live within the current system. the writer Philip K Dick was fond of saying that the roman empire never ended and that what we see today is merely a modern day manifestation of the same - i can see his point. i embrace the emergent conversation in it’s desire to become more relevant & authentic. would most people involved in the conversation agree that a) the message of Jesus is of him as redeemer and ourselves as sinners in need of redemption, and that b) this is largely anathema to the post-modern & secular mind? i have been outside organised church for well over a decade and in my own re-emergence as a christian, want to be authentic and real. i see redemtion not just in terms of heaven vs hell, but also working out in our daily lives - socially, politically, artistically, environmentally etc - as we seek to manifest G-d’s kingdom in our lives. however i am interested to hear how others see the message of humans as sinners in need of redemption fitting in with the emergent conversation. surely if we are to follow Jesus, this will often lead us into conflict with the current world system, as it’s values seem increasingly at odds with those of the kingdom. |
Comments
sin
Right on. The contemporary rejection of the idea of human sinfulness is justified insofar as the church has misportrayed it. Too often, ‘sin’ is viewed as an obscure offense against an angry deity. While sin can certainly offend and anger God, I think the Church owes it to its own credibility to define sin in terms of brokenness. Consequently, Jesus’ earthly ministry and his work on the cross serve not to appease a bloodthirsty god, but rather to heal humanity. And although the concept of ‘sin’ is problematic to many outside the church, few would deny that humanity (and the world) is in need of some kind of healing.
So to mutant’s original thought that "a) the message of Jesus is of him as redeemer and ourselves as sinners in need of redemption, and that b) this is largely anathema to the post-modern & secular mind" highlights the discrepancy between how Christians think of ‘sin’ and ‘redemption’, and how those two same terms evoke completely different thoughts among the unchurched. Because the emerging church wants to be relevant, it needs to convey the key concepts of sin and redemption in a way that bypasses the red flags those words bring up in most people’s minds.
New Book by Mark Biddle on Sin
I am only partly through the book but the writer describes sin as our inability to trust God in light of two facts about our humanity: our god-likeness and our finitude. In response to our anxiety, we either over step our humanity (pride) or devalue our humanness (sloth). The writer affirms that sin is described as rebellion and a crime but he wants to offer a fuller picture. So far so good…
I think this approach has potential for our post-modern culture and its lack of trust. Salvation is learning to trust God again.
Title of Book : Missing the Mark
Re: Sin as a break from our Source
In one of his books, toward the end, N.T. Wright says the concept of "image of God" is central to the church’s mission to the world. Pop psychology, the New Age movement each emphasize human worth and dignity; basic humanism. The Bible offers a foundation for that dignity, the image of God. Assuming the image of God has something to do with relationship and care for creation, I think this is where sin comes in. And it’s much like what has been said.
Object-Relations theory says that trust is developed by the relationships with those who raise us. When the bridge of trust is broken and not repaired, shame or fear sets in. The image of God gets buried within us and we can’t uncover it on our own. Instead, our defense mechanism is to lash out or hide within. This is sin. It sounds much the same as the book mentioned above. It also seems to fit for me with the flow of the "Fall of Adam and Eve" or the murder of Abel.
It is through Jesus that God repairs that bridge, reaffirms our identity as children of God and it is through Jesus by the Holy Spirit that we can trust God is a loving Father (but not a co-dependent Father who just lets anything go). If we’re determined God will let us go to our own devices. I see this "letting go" as God’s wrath.
With the unchurched, then, an emphasis on the image of God that we possess, though it may be buried, seems to be the way to go. With the over-churched, however, I would want to say there is a reason for sin (not an excuse mind you) that needs to be addressed not an action to be punished. "There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear; for fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not reached perfectio in love. We love because he first loved us." I Jn 4:18-19.
objective sin
I find it interesting that most of the comments on this post seem to emphasise sin from a personal or relational perspective. I have found these comments insightful but would like to experiment with another perspective.
Do you think this personal sin has to be intentional in order for it to be sin (no sin before the law came), or is sin sin even if the individual doesn’t know it is sin. Or is it sin if the action was not inherently sinful because it was done out of ignorance of the consequences. In short, will a well meaning person inevitably sin in a fallen world, or can ignorance always be an excuse for the “holy”.
What about allowing natural evil to happen through our neglect. It is easy for people to ignore what could be done in famine areas or in the prevention of particular natural disasters (tsunami early warning systems or effective evacuation out of the way of hurricanes). Is allowing preventable natural evil sinful.
Also, a new type of evil has become obvious in the struggles that “minorities” and the third world have continued to face even while most personal attitudes towards them are no longer obstructive. Many would agree that evil can be propogated by organisations, even while no individual intended or was even aware of that evil. Is this sin, that our cooperative actions have the effect of the actions of a sinful person.
In response to these cases, I would like to investigate a more objective definition of sin.
As an initial proposal I would like to suggest that sin is destruction without a probable creative offset. As all creation requires the destruction of what was previous, not all destruction can be looked on as evil. However, I think that as a first approximation of a definition it does not do a bad job of describing what we see as sin.
The main problem for evangelicals is that because it is not a personal definition of sin, there can no longer be a personal punishment for sin, and it may also make personal holiness problematic. We live in community in the world. We are holy or sinful together. A fallen humanity makes a fallen world, and our personal salvation can not be complete unless we live in a restored community in a restored heaven and earth. Does this resonate with anyone?
As a corollary to this Jesus could not have come to be an atoning sacrifice for the personal sins of all who accept it. It even makes a nonsense of the idea of God as the omnipotent bookkeeper keeping a record of all of our sins.
I have only recently found Psalm 130 which explains the ramifications of my proposed definition quite nicely: God does not hold sins against us, he freely forgives, but more importantly seeks to redeem the sins of whole nations. For me, this was God’s aim through Jesus: to redeem evil by making that evil the basis of new creativity. He wishes personal redemption in our restored relationships with him (as emphasised in other comments), but also an a redemption for the whole world.
Re: objective sin
As the author of some of those comments, I thought I might reply to some of your observations and questions. I don’t know that you have shared another perspective or just added another layer and a necessary one at that. While I would say that humans are relational, I would also want to say that that takes place on different levels: personally, interpersonally, societally, and environmentally. In other words, we relate with our self, others, culture, and the natural world.
I think your definition of sin (destruction without a probable creative offset) is a good one. To most of your questions I would answer yes. Actions that are destructive, coercive, or oppresive are sinful whether we know it or not. Paul does write of the "spirit of the air" and the "powers and principalities." Spirits (racism, capitalism, and other -isms), if you will, that influence structures and individuals alike; compete for our allegience and require our "worship." While our eyes my be veiled to the sin in which we participate it’s still sin. Jesus came to unveil or, positively speaking, reveal to us the truth of the matter; collectively and individually.
I would still want to say that it is a personal trust in the living God that frees us to love self and others, create supportive social structures, and be good stewards of the environment.
Re: objective sin
PasterPeter said:
“While our eyes my be veiled to the sin in which we participate it’s still sin. Jesus came to unveil or, positively speaking, reveal to us the truth of the matter; collectively and individually.
I would still want to say that it is a personal trust in the living God that frees us to love self and others, create supportive social structures, and be good stewards of the environment. ”
Rereading my comment I realised that I hadn’t actually mentioned our place in God’s redemptive plan. I couldn’t have said it as well as you have, so I’m glad I didn’t. Please consider the above quotation as part of my previous post :-)
Re: objective sin
Richard,
Your definition of sin does seem quite objective, but I think it falls down a little in some aspects. First, creativity is not dependent upon first a destruction of previous elements. Take my (rather odd) hobby of constructed langauges. Such is a creative effort, but no destruction is required. God’s creation of the universe required no destruction of anything. That is the first point.
The second: John 3:16 says, "Whoever believes in him shall not perish," not, "If all of you (or all of humanity) believes in him, they shall not perish." Since the "wages of sin is death", we have to assume that the "believing" is the answer to the "perishing", in other words, salvation from sin. And, although I agree with you that we are in community, and corporate sin affects the corps, I disagree that this corporate redemption is the only way by which we can be saved… I believe that is mentioned elsewhere in Scripture…
I agree with most of what you have said above with regards to the overlooked sins of our time. I disagree, I guess, with your conclusions.
What do you mean by, "For me, this was God’s aim through Jesus: to redeem evil by making that evil the basis of new creativity"? I take it that "that evil" must be destroyed in order to base our new creativity, rather than thinking up new and exciting ways to commit evil! :-D
I have enjoyed reading your comments, because it has provoked a lot of thought, and would like to hear more of your views, especially on how your ideas affect personal redemption/holiness.
Thanks!
"It’s not how long we’ve been standing here,
It’s that we haven’t moved forward…"
Re: Jesus and redemption
It certainly seems that sin is not a popular word. Unfortunately, the church has done the word a disservice. While we can’t deny that we are sinners in need of redemption, we shouldn’t feel too bad about changing what those words mean.
Here’s how I see it: The image of God in which we were created is buried within us; the desire for community and care, to love and be loved. I would say it’s been buried for us by broken relationships and coercive systems (often in the name of God) that have helped to raise us, mostly in shame and fear. It seems to me that Jesus’ redemption is calling us back to a loving Father. The Holy Spirit whispers this confidence into our hearts and reminds us of what Jesus said, burning away all of the crap in our lives and helping us to trust. Trusting in God’s love (faith) we can love one another. Not in a sentimental fashion, but in real sacrifice and generosity; subversive qualities that challenge the systems of coercion and destruction. That’s living in God’s kingdom on earth as it is in heaven.
I don’t want this to sound like a therapeutic gospel. I don’t think it’s about postivie thinking. But relationship goes to the heart of what it means to be human. When relationships break, so do we. In defense, we sin. That’s not meant to be an excuse, but it is a reason. Jesus has reconciled the one relationship that transcends the rest so that we can reconcile with others.
I also know that many on this site will want to talk about redemption and justification as dealing with Israel as a political nation and historical people. I don’t disagree with all of it, I just want to say that at the root of it all is a desire for trust, love and hope in the true and living God.