You Realize We Only Have A Few Billion Years
Careful, this cup is hot. This is a new blend and it’s really smooth. So…if you ask me, “Why Jesus?” here is my answer: first, to show in the life of Jesus and his teachings the potential we have in how we live and that we have denied the very best of the potential God has placed in us. Second, in Jesus we see the ultimate picture of God setting right our relationship through love and forgiveness offered without price. Third, in the crucifixion of Jesus we see our human nature that blindly rejects and denies that God’s way will get us where we desire to be. And fourth, the power of goodness witnessed in the resurrection is an emphatic statement that nothing in life or death can defeat God’s desires to achieve for creation the highest good.
Now if you were to ask of me, “What would you like to see in the Church of tomorrow?” I’d say for starters, let’s seriously rethink some key elements of what church goers hear sung, preached and taught in most churches every Sunday. Anselm’s 11th century theory that the powers of evil have captured the human spirit and therefore God must offer a ransom, or sacrifice, or something to balance the scales of injustice in order to restore that relationship doesn’t make sense to contemporary thinkers.
For those being raised in a modern society where the scientific and technological world speaks a language grounded in the material, concrete, and verifiable it is imperative we delete metaphors from the dark ages, run a virus sweep through our language of cosmic mysticism, and do a complete reinstall of the operating system. Scientific reasoning is the new platform by which all that is real in life is being measured. The Church must find a language that translates the truth of our tradition into this new world paradigm. Eleventh century ideas are just what they are, antiquated, nonsensical, and incomprehensible in the 21st century.
I think this is what Girard has done (see June 11 posting) by taking a route similar to that of Abelard with an exploration of both human and social behavior. Again, it is a context with which contemporary minds can grapple. Granted, as pointed out by some, Girard’s theory may have the same weakness as that of Abelard. Inspiration and knowledge of our corrupted thinking have not blossomed into the elimination of human cruelty as we continue to witness horrific evil at the hands of those who should have learned better. We may not have arrived at a final answer but at least Girard offers one that makes sense in our post modern world.
If we are to address seriously the statement “Jesus Saves” and claim that it has meaning in the world of today we must also face the reality of why isn’t there a greater progression away from human evil?
That’s a fair question but we must be fair as well in hearing a valid response that says there is progress in overcoming human evil. Perhaps not as quickly or as perfectly as we’d all like but a good look at human history, as short as it is, reveals highs and lows in individual and societal salvation. If viewed from the beginning of religious awareness to where we are now I think it can be said that we are moving in a positive direction toward human goodness and redemption.
In the Church we often say that faith is not an end in itself but is found in the journey. So it may well be with “salvation”. Our part is commitment to the journey but it is a journey that will take a life time and beyond. And so with the total salvation of creation and humanity; it may well be beyond us in time. Scientist measure that the future of our universe can be calculated as at several billion years before the sun burns out and the expansion of our solar system begins to contract. Compare the significant development in human evolution as measured in only a few thousand years and I suggest we can’t give up too soon on what is taking shape in our human existence. For example...wait, I’d better start another pot. This is starting to feel like it could take longer.
Now if you were to ask of me, “What would you like to see in the Church of tomorrow?” I’d say for starters, let’s seriously rethink some key elements of what church goers hear sung, preached and taught in most churches every Sunday. Anselm’s 11th century theory that the powers of evil have captured the human spirit and therefore God must offer a ransom, or sacrifice, or something to balance the scales of injustice in order to restore that relationship doesn’t make sense to contemporary thinkers.
For those being raised in a modern society where the scientific and technological world speaks a language grounded in the material, concrete, and verifiable it is imperative we delete metaphors from the dark ages, run a virus sweep through our language of cosmic mysticism, and do a complete reinstall of the operating system. Scientific reasoning is the new platform by which all that is real in life is being measured. The Church must find a language that translates the truth of our tradition into this new world paradigm. Eleventh century ideas are just what they are, antiquated, nonsensical, and incomprehensible in the 21st century.
I think this is what Girard has done (see June 11 posting) by taking a route similar to that of Abelard with an exploration of both human and social behavior. Again, it is a context with which contemporary minds can grapple. Granted, as pointed out by some, Girard’s theory may have the same weakness as that of Abelard. Inspiration and knowledge of our corrupted thinking have not blossomed into the elimination of human cruelty as we continue to witness horrific evil at the hands of those who should have learned better. We may not have arrived at a final answer but at least Girard offers one that makes sense in our post modern world.
If we are to address seriously the statement “Jesus Saves” and claim that it has meaning in the world of today we must also face the reality of why isn’t there a greater progression away from human evil?
That’s a fair question but we must be fair as well in hearing a valid response that says there is progress in overcoming human evil. Perhaps not as quickly or as perfectly as we’d all like but a good look at human history, as short as it is, reveals highs and lows in individual and societal salvation. If viewed from the beginning of religious awareness to where we are now I think it can be said that we are moving in a positive direction toward human goodness and redemption.
In the Church we often say that faith is not an end in itself but is found in the journey. So it may well be with “salvation”. Our part is commitment to the journey but it is a journey that will take a life time and beyond. And so with the total salvation of creation and humanity; it may well be beyond us in time. Scientist measure that the future of our universe can be calculated as at several billion years before the sun burns out and the expansion of our solar system begins to contract. Compare the significant development in human evolution as measured in only a few thousand years and I suggest we can’t give up too soon on what is taking shape in our human existence. For example...wait, I’d better start another pot. This is starting to feel like it could take longer.
I like the concept of progressive evolution toward goodness over eons of time. Could you explain a little more how Girard's scapegoat theory fits with that?
ReplyDeleteI'm not putting all my eggs in Girard's basket but his theory has received high acclaim from a generous number of modern thinkers as well as valid critique by others. His theory is relatively new and will either be refined or continue to point the way to other theories. The strength of Girard's theory I find appealing is that humans tend to learn from their mistakes. The question is can we see the mistake Girard points out or do we just continue blindly repeating the past. My thinking is that if we butt our heads against the wall long enough we'll opt for alternatives. His theory puts the burden back on us rather than some intrusive act of God or cosmic character riding in on the wind throwing lightning bolts out of the clouds.
ReplyDeleteI ponder less the sins of humanity and placing blame for the crucifixion and more the choice Jesus made in submitting to it. I suppose, therefore, I'm in the "moral influence" category of understanding.
ReplyDelete