Wait, are we talking about two different kinds of “scapegoat” here? I’m thinking of the ritual kind…
Probably so, I was thinking of the more general kind of "someone or something that society blames for all of its problems. Ritual scapegoats certainly qualify as a very literal kind of scapegoat, but I think that the practice is not always so precisely literal, historically.
Sorry, I do not accept the idea of Christ being a perfect surficial lamb in the Old Testament sense. I see the Lamb as God's self-giving love to the world. It is not the lamb taking on the consequences of sin for us; but, rather, the lamb bearing the consequences of sin with us, The sacrificial lamb not a victim offered to God, but the sacramental lamb is God offering God's self to us
I'm not sure anyone here is saying that the atonement, the sacraments - however understood - or any other 'means' (to borrow a Reformed phrase) by which God reveals himself to us - is anything other than 'God offering God's self to us.'
In order, I'd add, that we may 'participate in the divine nature' and become more like him.
I think there's been a fair bit of 'talking past each other' going on recently, both on this thread and the Christology one.
Most of us are saying the same things in complementary rather than contradictory ways but equally - and I've done this - we've 'opposed' things other people aren't saying or read things in to their posts which aren't there.
Wait, are we talking about two different kinds of “scapegoat” here? I’m thinking of the ritual kind…
Probably so, I was thinking of the more general kind of "someone or something that society blames for all of its problems. Ritual scapegoats certainly qualify as a very literal kind of scapegoat, but I think that the practice is not always so precisely literal, historically.
I also kinda miss IngoB.
I don't. My mental health is all the better for not reading about his damnationist God on a regular basis. His God was so awful that IngoB himself only thought he had a 50% chance of escaping Hell.
I'm utterly lost in this thread, now, which is frustrating to me, because I'm not a person for whom metaphysical "mystery" is an acceptable answer. And to disagree with @Lamb Chopped as gently as possible, I don't understand (there's that word again) how a person claims "very core of reality" in the same post as "just works" with a wink and a shrug and a 'only God can know' opinion.
Let's just say for the sake of my sanity that at-one-ment restores and repairs humanity to God -- is that acceptable? Correct enough?
Then what? Is that it? Is its intrinsic value all there is -- we just get to believe/feel/know(?) that the entire Jesus Episode resulted in human atonement?
To what end?
Now what? Do I quote a Christmas song here? "So be good for goodness' sake."
Let's just say for the sake of my sanity that at-one-ment restores and repairs humanity to God -- is that acceptable? Correct enough?
Yes, from my perspective.
Then what? Is that it? Is its intrinsic value all there is -- we just get to believe/feel/know(?) that the entire Jesus Episode resulted in human atonement?
To what end?
Well, I don’t know how satisfying this will be for you, as it just raises more questions. But I would say the “then what?” is life. Estrangement from and rebellion toward God ultimately lead to death—which some will interpret as spiritual death, while others will understand more literally, though in an eternal rather than purely physical sense. As Paul says, “the wages of sin is death.” (Note, not sins, but sin—the condition or state of estrangement and rebellion.)
At-one-ment, reconciliation and restoration of right relationship, with God leads to life, life as it was meant to be. Per Jesus, “I came that they may have life and have it abundantly.”
Let's just say for the sake of my sanity that at-one-ment restores and repairs humanity to God -- is that acceptable? Correct enough?
Then what? Is that it?
There's the response that Jesus dying to save us should motivate gratitude and love; Abelard raised that to the whole significance. Paul writes that having died to sin we should resolve to live in love for God and our neighbour. Paul also thinks that Jesus having overcome death we should no longer fear death; Gregory of Nyssa, one of the best of the Fathers, diagnosed much of the ills of classical society as driven by fear of death and the desire to purchase ersatz immortality.
Doublethink recently posted a study that IIRC found that the best way for an inspectorate to motivate organisations, such as care homes, to do good and live up to their responsibilities was neither to overlook wrongdoing, nor to condemn the agencies as wicked, but to treat the agencies as good but having done a bad thing that could be restored if the organisation mended its ways. That seems to me the basic Christian message, with two ways in which the church goes wrong alongside, either offering cheap grace (too easy forgiveness) or else being too condemnatory. Much of Christian theology is there to show that this is an expression of the nature of reality.
Let's just say for the sake of my sanity that at-one-ment restores and repairs humanity to God -- is that acceptable? Correct enough?
Then what? Is that it?
There's the response that Jesus dying to save us should motivate gratitude and love; Abelard raised that to the whole significance. Paul writes that having died to sin we should resolve to live in love for God and our neighbour. Paul also thinks that Jesus having overcome death we should no longer fear death; Gregory of Nyssa, one of the best of the Fathers, diagnosed much of the ills of classical society as driven by fear of death and the desire to purchase ersatz immortality.
Doublethink recently posted a study that IIRC found that the best way for an inspectorate to motivate organisations, such as care homes, to do good and live up to their responsibilities was neither to overlook wrongdoing, nor to condemn the agencies as wicked, but to treat the agencies as good but having done a bad thing that could be restored if the organisation mended its ways. That seems to me the basic Christian message, with two ways in which the church goes wrong alongside, either offering cheap grace (too easy forgiveness) or else being too condemnatory. Much of Christian theology is there to show that this is an expression of the nature of reality.
A lot of this only works for me in a Universalist framework. Why would I not still fear death if it means losing my nearest and dearest to oblivion at best and eternal torment at worst?
I've mentioned this before, I think, but Orthodoxy would consider full-on dogmatic universalism 'heretical' yet would hold it out as a possibility. As long as we don't dogmatise it.
We're odd like that.
The late Metropolitan Kallistos Ware often veered very close to universalism I think.
I know some full on evangelical types who did so towards the end of their lives too.
We've had discussions here before about the efficacy of prayers for the dead.
My Protestant friends may disagree but I find that helpful whenever I feel a pang wondering what has become of departed relatives and friends who didn't openly profess any kind of faith.
I've mentioned this before, I think, but Orthodoxy would consider full-on dogmatic universalism 'heretical' yet would hold it out as a possibility. As long as we don't dogmatise it.
We're odd like that.
Barth took pretty much the same odd path, and it’s the path where I find myself.
My bags are packed and I’m ready to go. So I find I have some time.
I thought I would look again at St John Chrysostom’s Homily 88 on the Gospel of Matthew. Because I remembered some things from my first reading of it.
A warning for any who might want to follow me. Some of it suggests an antisemitism. I think he expresses anger against the Jews who mocked Jesus on the Cross, because of their mockery. Thats not unreasonable but in my view his language goes too far.
But that is not what I want to point out. He does indeed refer to divine wrath and indignation. But what he sees, in the supernatural darkness and earthquakes, is divine anger being discharged through nature about the outrage committed against Jesus.
There is not a hint in his homily that on the cross where Jesus died the wrath of God was satisfied. That element in PSA is completely absent. Rather the emphasis is on victory over sin and death and Satan.
On reflection, for those who see wrath in God against sin, I find it curious that there is very little insight about what God might really be wrathful i.e God the Father indignant (a Chrysostom word) about what people are doing to his Son. It’s a very obvious point in the narrative.
Note I am not here knocking those who see no wrath in God. I am alluding to a flaw in the thinking behind the P is PSA.
However I’m not clear from the comments why some see substitution as unnecessary or objectionable. The Emmaeus Road account has Jesus saying it was necessary. So why was it necessary, if not as a substitutionary atonement?
Of course it displays the human evil of this very cruel punishment of the innocent. But surely rather more than that?
Here is the poignant quotation from Romans Chapter 5.
6 You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. 7 Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous person, though for a good person someone might possibly dare to die. 8 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
Thanks for taking the time to post those thoughts, @Barnabas62.
Sadly, Chrysostom and other early Fathers could certainly veer into ugly antisemitic territory.
On the substitutionary element ...
This may sound pedantic but from what I've seen - and I'm no expert - those who downplay or deny any 'substitutionary' element appear to draw a distinction between the 'for us' element and the instead of us angle.
Whatever the case, I think it's true that Chrysostom and other Fathers emphasised the Cross and Resurrection as victory over sin, death and Satan.
For the Orthodox Church today that's the overwhelming emphasis and is very apparent at our Easter services.
Back in my evangelical Protestant days I felt that by eliding PSA this wasn't being 'tough on sin, tough on the causes of sin,' to borrow a Blairite phrase.
Gradually, I'm coming to realise that my reading of Romans and understanding of justification and so on was a very 'Western' one and informed by the controversies of the 16th century rather than how these things were understood previously or elsewhere in the Christian world.
That's not to dismiss or downplay the very real and knotty issues that the Reformers and Counter-Reformers were dealing with. But some of their contentions were less of an issue when approached from an Orthodox perspective where, to put it bluntly, there was less of a tendency to 'dichotomise' or set ideas in opposition to each other.
Putting it simply, we don't put faith over against works or scripture over against Tradition or ...
Now, I know I run the risk of caricaturing Protestant and RC 'takes' there and recognise there's a lot more nuance than that.
As I've said, I'm no expert and where I'm 'at' now I still see the substitutionary aspect there as you've outlined.
Others would probably disagree with me and suggest that I'm 'conditioned' to read substitutionary elements into the text from my Protestant evangelical spiritual formation.
Be that as it may, the thing for me to do is to hear both sides of these arguments and keep working them through, whether holding them in tension or coming down on one side or another.
As a 'both/and' person I sometimes ride two horses at once ...
Ultimately, though, it's not all about theories and perspectives but living in the good of what God in Christ has done for us - however we understand it to the limited extent we are able to do so.
Well said. Your penultimate paragraph is the key. Agree entirely.
A little translation issue re ὑπὲρ (hyper), the NT Greek for “for”. In the Romans 5 context it means “on behalf of”, rather than “instead of”. That makes a small but significant difference.
“Christ died on behalf of the ungodly. Christ died on behalf of us, while we were yet sinners.” I see that as substitutionary but not because of the Pauline interpretation point you rightly make. Simply because it is a perfectly reasonable interpretation. But it’s possible to see it differently. And I have no wish to talk past those who do.
See you on the other side of my holiday, God willing!
Just 10 minutes before I read this, my wife headed toward the door to go do Needful Things, and she spoke the words “I hate to leave you.” And that in turn prompted me to sing “So kiss me and smile for me.” Which she obligingly did.
Wait, are we talking about two different kinds of “scapegoat” here? I’m thinking of the ritual kind…
Probably so, I was thinking of the more general kind of "someone or something that society blames for all of its problems. Ritual scapegoats certainly qualify as a very literal kind of scapegoat, but I think that the practice is not always so precisely literal, historically.
I also kinda miss IngoB.
I don't. My mental health is all the better for not reading about his damnationist God on a regular basis. His God was so awful that IngoB himself only thought he had a 50% chance of escaping Hell.
Fair enough. I think I find his approach easier to cope with because I don't take it so seriously anymore. In a sense he makes a kind of specimen in my mind. Or maybe I have just forgotten.
So, circling back, once we have understood that atonement has occurred, we
(1) have life, though no one can say what kind of life (@Nick Tamen) beyond the otherwise earthly life we would have had without knowing atonement had occurred.
(2) can be like Jesus and/or God the Father (whatever 'be like' means) (@Gamma Gamaliel) which must mean more than being created in the gods' image and acquiring the knowledge of good and evil (like the gods)
(3) should feel motivated to feel gratitude and extend love, ostensibly for our Biblical neighbor (@Dafyd)
And this can be at all because Jesus experienced death (both physically and otherwise since the Apostle's Creed shares "he descended into hell"). Since none of us are physically getting out of here alive, one can gather that it is the Otherwise Death that Jesus endured from which we're being saved. Yes?
So, circling back, once we have understood that atonement has occurred, we
(1) have life, though no one can say what kind of life (@Nick Tamen) beyond the otherwise earthly life we would have had without knowing atonement had occurred.
If this is intended to summarize my earlier answer, I don’t feel like it does. While I acknowledged there may well be different understandings about the kind of life that comes with reconciliation with God, I didn’t say “no one can tell us what kind of life.” I think one of the main thrusts of Scripture in general, and of the Gospels in particular, is to tell us what kind of life, and what kind of death comes with estrangement from God. “Different understandings” suggests that others also can tell us what it means, but what they tell us may not always agree.
Of course, you may not buy what anyone says, and that’s totally up to you. I’m not here to talk you out of that. But that doesn’t mean they can’t tell us what kind of life; it means that you are convinced by what they tell us about what kind of life.
Apologies, @Nick Tamen. I don't want to misrepresent anyone here. I'm afraid the way your clarification reads, though, is that you prefer your description of ambiguity to my description of ambiguity. If Jesus' own claim (John 10:10) is that he "came that they [his sheep] may have life and have it abundantly," I can trace that back a verse, the sheep/shepherd analogy notwithstanding, to find "Whoever enters by me will be saved and will come in and go out and find pasture." I still have to do all kinds of extrapolating to know what that kind of life that means. It seems like that is the tactic of most if not all scripture. So what we're left with in entirety is "different understandings."
Are they all correct?
I suspect you'll make or ask for some kind of qualification for "correct," but that's really what I'm continually driving at -- what is correct -- especially, as it's been said repeatedly, the Bible doesn't actually say what the Bible says.
Apologies, @Nick Tamen. I don't want to misrepresent anyone here. I'm afraid the way your clarification reads, though, is that you prefer your description of ambiguity to my description of ambiguity.
Perhaps. I don’t see any ambiguity, but I can accept it if how I see it seems to you to involve ambiguity.
I’d say it seems to me that different underlying assumptions are at play, and that’s affecting how we each are reading posts in this thread.
I'm utterly lost in this thread, now, which is frustrating to me, because I'm not a person for whom metaphysical "mystery" is an acceptable answer. And to disagree with @Lamb Chopped as gently as possible, I don't understand (there's that word again) how a person claims "very core of reality" in the same post as "just works" with a wink and a shrug and a 'only God can know' opinion.
Let's just say for the sake of my sanity that at-one-ment restores and repairs humanity to God -- is that acceptable? Correct enough?
Then what? Is that it? Is its intrinsic value all there is -- we just get to believe/feel/know(?) that the entire Jesus Episode resulted in human atonement?
To what end?
Now what? Do I quote a Christmas song here? "So be good for goodness' sake."
Apart from everything else, isn’t “being good,” because goodness is right, in the order of the universe stemming from ultimate cosmic love, reason enough? This isn’t necessarily an exclusively Christian concept, of course.
Thanks for taking the time to post those thoughts, @Barnabas62.
Sadly, Chrysostom and other early Fathers could certainly veer into ugly antisemitic territory.
On the substitutionary element ...
This may sound pedantic but from what I've seen - and I'm no expert - those who downplay or deny any 'substitutionary' element appear to draw a distinction between the 'for us' element and the instead of us angle.
Whatever the case, I think it's true that Chrysostom and other Fathers emphasised the Cross and Resurrection as victory over sin, death and Satan.
For the Orthodox Church today that's the overwhelming emphasis and is very apparent at our Easter services.
Back in my evangelical Protestant days I felt that by eliding PSA this wasn't being 'tough on sin, tough on the causes of sin,' to borrow a Blairite phrase.
Gradually, I'm coming to realise that my reading of Romans and understanding of justification and so on was a very 'Western' one and informed by the controversies of the 16th century rather than how these things were understood previously or elsewhere in the Christian world.
That's not to dismiss or downplay the very real and knotty issues that the Reformers and Counter-Reformers were dealing with. But some of their contentions were less of an issue when approached from an Orthodox perspective where, to put it bluntly, there was less of a tendency to 'dichotomise' or set ideas in opposition to each other.
Putting it simply, we don't put faith over against works or scripture over against Tradition or ...
Now, I know I run the risk of caricaturing Protestant and RC 'takes' there and recognise there's a lot more nuance than that.
As I've said, I'm no expert and where I'm 'at' now I still see the substitutionary aspect there as you've outlined.
Others would probably disagree with me and suggest that I'm 'conditioned' to read substitutionary elements into the text from my Protestant evangelical spiritual formation.
Be that as it may, the thing for me to do is to hear both sides of these arguments and keep working them through, whether holding them in tension or coming down on one side or another.
As a 'both/and' person I sometimes ride two horses at once ...
Ultimately, though, it's not all about theories and perspectives but living in the good of what God in Christ has done for us - however we understand it to the limited extent we are able to do so.
Would talking about the “ransom” theory of, or approach to (or aspect of) atonement the appropriate here, or would it be better for a different thread? I know that at least one approach to this is that essentially we kind of sold ourselves to Satan/evil with the fall, and that Jesus through His Death ransomed from that—that we were “bought with a price.”
I'm utterly lost in this thread, now, which is frustrating to me, because I'm not a person for whom metaphysical "mystery" is an acceptable answer. And to disagree with @Lamb Chopped as gently as possible, I don't understand (there's that word again) how a person claims "very core of reality" in the same post as "just works" with a wink and a shrug and a 'only God can know' opinion.
Let's just say for the sake of my sanity that at-one-ment restores and repairs humanity to God -- is that acceptable? Correct enough?
Then what? Is that it? Is its intrinsic value all there is -- we just get to believe/feel/know(?) that the entire Jesus Episode resulted in human atonement?
To what end?
Now what? Do I quote a Christmas song here? "So be good for goodness' sake."
First, a minor correction. There is no wink or shrug involved here. There is only me attempting to describe (not explain) something God himself has left a mystery--how communion works, how the atonement itself works. Nobody's using "mystery" as a way of avoiding the requirement to think; rather, we're admitting that we haven't got sufficient data to do anything useful on the subject, at least as far as thinking goes.
I see you say of yourself that " I'm not a person for whom metaphysical "mystery" is an acceptable answer." That's a pity, and temperamentally I'm more of your camp than perhaps you realize. But there's not much any of us can do to wring additional data or explanations out of God when he chooses to withhold them.
In fact, it's one of the frustrating things about Jesus. He tends to be elusive, particularly with those who are not yet his disciples. So he talks to the crowds in parables, he plays rhetorical hide and seek with his enemies, and so forth. His disciples get explanations, though even the explanations sometimes make our heads spin. But there's something real there.
You ask "to what end?" meaning, I think, "To what end does the atonement exist--and more than that, are we told about it?"
I believe it's to this end:
28 Then they said to [Jesus], “What must we do, to be doing the works of God?”
29 Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.”
This is from John 6, and the context is a long, involved argument Jesus is having with some people who are fascinated by his miracles (in particular, the multiplication of loaves and fish) but want more than that (like a lifelong commitment to doing them daily for their benefit, again and again and again). Jesus won't make that commitment to them, and they are understandably frustrated. What is the value of a man who could feed the nation but refuses to be made a bread king? Ultimately they walk away.
From Jesus' point of view, however, the miracles are there to point them to the real Bread--that is, to Jesus himself, and to an ongoing knowledge, faith and confidence in him. Dare I say it, to a "relationship" with him. And immediately we're in the realm of metaphysical mystery, because Jesus clearly thought it possible for all these crowds of people to be joined to him in faith and trust, one by one by one, personally, even though a little thought would tell you that there's a sharp limit to the number of people any ordinary man can maintain a meaningful relationship with. What's more, he made it clear to his disciples that he expected them to go on making this invitation to people after his death and resurrection--so yeah, we're clearly in the realm of mystery. (It's also clear that Jesus considers himself much more than an ordinary man.)
At this point, there's not much more to say than what Philip said to Nathanael when he expressed doubt about the amazing new prophet they'd discovered: "Come and see for yourself." Jesus will tempt, will tantalize, will call people to himself through all sorts of means; but if they refuse to come to him and er, "try him out," well, there's not much anybody else can do. We can't argue you into anything. Jesus hasn't given us the wherewithal to do that. And I think that was on purpose. He doesn't believe in coercion, even logical coercion.
I’m no longer an active Host so it definitely isn’t my call. All the atonement theories interlink to some extent. and I think they all relate to some extent to the Jesus statement that he gives his life as a ransom for many.
Whether it widens the thread beyond the tolerance of Hosts probably depends on what interest it generates. Admin always have the capability of splitting a thread if that looks best.
Personally I’d give it a go to see what happens, but I suppose you could, as an alternative, PM a Host to get a prior view? I suppose one might drop in now after seeing your post?
I’m leaving, not on a jet plane (!), in about 4 hours, which is why I’m awake early. I’ll be interested in how it turns out. It’s definitely an intriguing idea!
Ok. The 'ransom theory' was certainly popular among the early Fathers but it's not common in Orthodoxy these days - we see ourselves as in 'unbroken' succession with the Fathers of course and their writings form part of Holy Tradition.
That doesn't mean we have a 'copyright' on them nor that we treat them as 'Holy Writ'.
The fact that the ransom theory with its grotesque bait and switch tropes has fallen out of favour shows that we are (slightly) less fossilised than people think...
'Ransom' raises all sorts of issues of course. To whom is it 'paid'?
Much to discuss there but it'll be pretty academic as I doubt many, if any, of us here take a crudely transactional view of the atonement.
Thank you, @Lamb Chopped for your lovely reply. I know that from time to time I've been a thorn in your side. You're very kind.
I do wish I still had the condolences of faith. Still, I continue to wrestle against the idea that it's impossible to know what is true about Christianity: what is accurate, what is correct, what is right. This atonement thread is just the latest example. Different traditions, different interpretations, different language, different Patriarchal prerogatives... it just leaves me frustrated. No one knows. No one can know. But so many people think they do. And they don't agree, sometimes, at all. Is that Christianity's greatest quality -- that it's an 'all sizes fit One' project? It seems clear enough that getting it wrong costs nothing. So few seem bothered by that. I don't get it. I don't get God's choice of substitutionary atonement as the necessary vehicle/mechanism. He's God -- he could have just decided we were atoned to himself. Right? That wasn't an option? There had to be a gruesome torturing and death of... God? I know, I know -- it's a mystery -- just embrace the mystery.
Thank you, @Lamb Chopped for your lovely reply. I know that from time to time I've been a thorn in your side. You're very kind.
I do wish I still had the condolences of faith. Still, I continue to wrestle against the idea that it's impossible to know what is true about Christianity: what is accurate, what is correct, what is right. This atonement thread is just the latest example. Different traditions, different interpretations, different language, different Patriarchal prerogatives... it just leaves me frustrated. No one knows. No one can know. But so many people think they do. And they don't agree, sometimes, at all. Is that Christianity's greatest quality -- that it's an 'all sizes fit One' project? It seems clear enough that getting it wrong costs nothing. So few seem bothered by that. I don't get it. I don't get God's choice of substitutionary atonement as the necessary vehicle/mechanism. He's God -- he could have just decided we were atoned to himself. Right? That wasn't an option? There had to be a gruesome torturing and death of... God? I know, I know -- it's a mystery -- just embrace the mystery.
Reading through your struggles reminds me of the story of Jacob wrestling with God(?) through the night. Nothing wrong with that. In the end, God gives Jacob a blessing, and a new name Isreal. I would say part of faith is a continual contending with God. Faith implies questions. Contending with God implies a relationship with God that is dynamic, not passive.
Yes, there are different interpretations of many doctrines. Kind of like a series of blind people trying to describe an elephant. No one is completely correct. Another way of looking at it is like looking across the lake at a moon. Ultimately, we take a leap of faith, saying I believe, help thou, my unbelief.
Reading through your struggles reminds me of the story of Jacob wrestling with God(?) through the night. Nothing wrong with that. In the end, God gives Jacob a blessing, and a new name Isreal. I would say part of faith is a continual contending with God. Faith implies questions. Contending with God implies a relationship with God that is dynamic, not passive.
Or Job! His “friends” (with friends like these, who needs enemies?…) think they have it all figured out in a kind of glib “blame the victim” way, but Job is the one who questions God, and while (1) he doesn’t get a clear answer of the kind he seeks, (2) God considers him righteous, even so much as to have him (3) pray for those “friends” who claimed they had it all figured out. I think there’s something extremely profound there in that story about our relationship with God and interacting with him even when we don’t have the answers.
Thank you, @Lamb Chopped for your lovely reply. I know that from time to time I've been a thorn in your side. You're very kind.
I do wish I still had the condolences of faith. Still, I continue to wrestle against the idea that it's impossible to know what is true about Christianity: what is accurate, what is correct, what is right. This atonement thread is just the latest example. Different traditions, different interpretations, different language, different Patriarchal prerogatives... it just leaves me frustrated. No one knows. No one can know. But so many people think they do. And they don't agree, sometimes, at all. Is that Christianity's greatest quality -- that it's an 'all sizes fit One' project? It seems clear enough that getting it wrong costs nothing. So few seem bothered by that. I don't get it. I don't get God's choice of substitutionary atonement as the necessary vehicle/mechanism. He's God -- he could have just decided we were atoned to himself. Right? That wasn't an option? There had to be a gruesome torturing and death of... God? I know, I know -- it's a mystery -- just embrace the mystery.
Reading through your struggles reminds me of the story of Jacob wrestling with God(?) through the night. Nothing wrong with that. In the end, God gives Jacob a blessing, and a new name Isreal. I would say part of faith is a continual contending with God. Faith implies questions. Contending with God implies a relationship with God that is dynamic, not passive.
Yes, there are different interpretations of many doctrines. Kind of like a series of blind people trying to describe an elephant. No one is completely correct. Another way of looking at it is like looking across the lake at a moon. Ultimately, we take a leap of faith, saying I believe, help thou, my unbelief.
If this was on Facebook, I would give a heart to it, so here it is: ❤️
Thank you, @Lamb Chopped for your lovely reply. I know that from time to time I've been a thorn in your side. You're very kind.
I do wish I still had the condolences of faith. Still, I continue to wrestle against the idea that it's impossible to know what is true about Christianity: what is accurate, what is correct, what is right. This atonement thread is just the latest example. Different traditions, different interpretations, different language, different Patriarchal prerogatives... it just leaves me frustrated. No one knows. No one can know. But so many people think they do. And they don't agree, sometimes, at all. Is that Christianity's greatest quality -- that it's an 'all sizes fit One' project? It seems clear enough that getting it wrong costs nothing. So few seem bothered by that. I don't get it. I don't get God's choice of substitutionary atonement as the necessary vehicle/mechanism. He's God -- he could have just decided we were atoned to himself. Right? That wasn't an option? There had to be a gruesome torturing and death of... God? I know, I know -- it's a mystery -- just embrace the mystery.
Reading through your struggles reminds me of the story of Jacob wrestling with God(?) through the night. Nothing wrong with that. In the end, God gives Jacob a blessing, and a new name Isreal. I would say part of faith is a continual contending with God. Faith implies questions. Contending with God implies a relationship with God that is dynamic, not passive.
I had the same thought, @Gramps49. For me, a big part of the value of that story is the way it commends wrestling with God and with ideas.
Yes, there are different interpretations of many doctrines. Kind of like a series of blind people trying to describe an elephant. No one is completely correct. Another way of looking at it is like looking across the lake at a moon. Ultimately, we take a leap of faith, saying I believe, help thou, my unbelief.
And like, I’ve thought of the elephant parable. I think the various models of atonement are better understood as incomplete attempts to describe what we see, rather than as answers or explanations.
As @The_Riv rightly asks, why should a price have to be paid? I remember Douglas Adams making a similar point in one of the Hitchhiker books.
Is there really a Devil fostering deceit and evil? I think that’s what’s at the root of it. If human propensity to behave badly, causing hurt to self and others, is all that’s going on, then surely a benign deity doesn’t need to resort to such strange, harsh, complicated and confusing remedies?
Most, if not all, of the atonement concepts presuppose diabolical influence to be defeated. The ransom concept, in its original form as proposed by Origen, certainly did just that. The ransom price was Jesus’ death and descent to Hell and was paid to the devil to redeem humans from sin and death. The “bait and switch” was that the devil was tricked. He didn’t understand that Jesus could not be held in Hell. He would rise.
And from @The_Riv’s point of view that might be replacing a confusing necessity by an absurdity! Who could blame him?
Right! Now unpack! I’ll be interested in how you get on. Probably no WiFi for the next couple of weeks after today.
<snip> The ransom concept, in its original form as proposed by Origen, certainly did just that. The ransom price was Jesus’ death and descent to Hell and was paid to the devil to redeem humans from sin and death. The “bait and switch” was that the devil was tricked. He didn’t understand that Jesus could not be held in Hell. He would rise.
<snip>
This is pretty much how C.S. Lewis presents it in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe.
I think the various models of atonement are better understood as incomplete attempts to describe what we see, rather than as answers or explanations.
Yes. When it comes down to it, Jesus was crucified and his followers got the impression from what he did and said that it was pretty important that he did so for one reason or another.
Everything else is (in a non-pejorative sense) speculation. It tries to be logically coherent speculation based on what we know of what Jesus reveals about God.
It's not a doctrine made up out of nothing and then fitted to the facts; it's an attempt to explain the facts.
People choose to be captivated by 'deeper magic,' right? I mean, you have to want to have your disbelief suspended.
Is suspension of disbelief an apt descriptor? It means that you know what you’re seeing or reading isn’t true, but you make a conscious choice to ignore your knowledge that it isn’t true for the sake of engaging with the story.
Whether one believes in Christian ideas of atonement/reconciliation or not, I don’t think it’s accurate to suggest that those who do believe know the story isn’t true but have chosen to suspend that knowledge for the sake of engaging with the story. Rather, I think you have to start with an assumption that they believe the story to be true and, as @Dafyd suggested, are trying to describe with words and metaphors that make sense to them what they believe to be true.
People choose to be captivated by 'deeper magic,' right? I mean, you have to want to have your disbelief suspended.
Is suspension of disbelief an apt descriptor? It means that you know what you’re seeing or reading isn’t true, but you make a conscious choice to ignore your knowledge that it isn’t true for the sake of engaging with the story.
Whether one believes in Christian ideas of atonement/reconciliation or not, I don’t think it’s accurate to suggest that those who do believe know the story isn’t true but have chosen to suspend that knowledge for the sake of engaging with the story. Rather, I think you have to start with an assumption that they believe the story to be true and, as @Dafyd suggested, are trying to describe with words and metaphors that make sense to them what they believe to be true.
I do happen to think that's as realistic a prospect for a Christian than anything else. "Lord, I believe. Help my unbelief." Do you know Christians who reject any of Jesus' miracles? I do. They know that Jesus didn't turn water into wine because that's not how chemistry works. They know that Jesus didn't walk on water because that's not how physics works. The list goes on. Christians don't believe those things, yet they persist in their Christianity. Virgin birth? Entirely optional, said by folks here on these hallowed boards. Those Christians are willfully suspending their disbelief about Jesus to engage with the larger story about Jesus. It's an incredibly adaptive faith in that regard. One can not believe all kinds of things included within the faith and still be well within the faith, and arguably as in as anyone else who believes more or differently. Maybe it's not a good holistic descriptor, but suspending disbelief is fairly accurate when the faith is taken in part.
Regarding the miracle stories of Jesus. There is no doubt in my mind Jesus was considered a miracle worker. I think some of the miracles were real, others were more theological expressions.
You mention changing water into wine. Look at the full story. It is a wedding that is about to go bust. Jesus comes along and the best wine is served at the last. Kind of speaks to the difference between the end of the Isreal community and the beginning of the Christian Community.
To the point of Jesus walking on water, again look at the story. The disciples were struggling in turbulent waters when they see an apparition walking on the waters toward them. They realize it is Jesus, and the waters calm down. In Greek and Roman myths there are similar stories of heroes calming the water The story is very similar to one where Orion walks on water. The boat the disciples were sailing in is often a symbol of the church. When their eyes are not on Jesus, things can get rough. When they look to Jesus, the seas are calm Ses are also symbols of evil.
Whether I can attest to these miracles were historical or not, they do present certain truths in a symbolic way that I can preach on.
I’m sorry to have been gone for a bit. I’ve been snowed under with work and a sick son, and promised myself I’d be back when I got my rough draft done.
To The_Riv—thank you for your kind reply. I do think it is possible to know the truth—about Christ and what he teaches. Jesus told us, “ “My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me. If anyone's will is to do God's will, he will know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own authority” (John 7:16-17). Hey, it works for me—and I was not always a Christian.
I can’t explain why God chose to do things the way he did. He hasn’t told us, and I don’t expect him to explain himself to me! But no, I don’t expect anyone to just accept that “it’s a mystery, so stop thinking,” either. Jesus invites people to dig into what he says and does, and I’m glad, because that suits the kind of person I am—someone who doesn’t trust very easily at all.
You mention “suspended disbelief.” That’s not what it feels like to me at all, and I’m an English lit student. I know suspension of disbelief when I feel it!
What it feels like, is primary belief. That is, the same kind of belief that I have for the events of my own life, or for things my husband tells me—and I’ve known him more than 40 years. I’m not suspending my disbelief because I’m captivated by the story. Rather, I believe the story to be true, as Nick says; and I believe it because I know Jesus Christ, and I find him utterly trustworthy.
That’s a personality thing, really. I didn’t always know him, and it took me a long time to trust him, and I still don’t trust him as he deserves. But I’ve never found him to ring false. When he says something, and I can test it, it comes out true. As a result, when he says something I can’t test, I trust him on it.
I’m sure you’ve got people in your own life that you trust like that—people who, if they told you something you’d normally disbelieve, you’d take another look—and a third, and a fourth—because of the person you know who’s vouching for it.
Really, the whole thing stands or falls on the person of Jesus Christ. If he is the person I’ve come to know, well, then, I can believe any number of miracles. And I will also agree to do any number of things that I’d normally not do, not being a glutton for punishment—such as the refugee work we’re involved in. Or forgiving and working with someone who did a pretty good job of messing up my life 25 years ago.
I’m mentioning these because you have the right to know if I’m actually putting my eggs in Jesus’ basket, if you see what I mean. Do I really trust him? Enough to do this, at least. And it’s not magic, or suspension of disbelief, or not understanding science, or anything else. It’s because of the person he is.
Comments
Probably so, I was thinking of the more general kind of "someone or something that society blames for all of its problems. Ritual scapegoats certainly qualify as a very literal kind of scapegoat, but I think that the practice is not always so precisely literal, historically.
I also kinda miss IngoB.
In order, I'd add, that we may 'participate in the divine nature' and become more like him.
I think there's been a fair bit of 'talking past each other' going on recently, both on this thread and the Christology one.
Most of us are saying the same things in complementary rather than contradictory ways but equally - and I've done this - we've 'opposed' things other people aren't saying or read things in to their posts which aren't there.
I don't. My mental health is all the better for not reading about his damnationist God on a regular basis. His God was so awful that IngoB himself only thought he had a 50% chance of escaping Hell.
I found it all quite entertaining, but that might tell you more about me than what it says about his posts.
I don't recall you posting that nearly everyone will go to Hell.
Let's just say for the sake of my sanity that at-one-ment restores and repairs humanity to God -- is that acceptable? Correct enough?
Then what? Is that it? Is its intrinsic value all there is -- we just get to believe/feel/know(?) that the entire Jesus Episode resulted in human atonement?
To what end?
Now what? Do I quote a Christmas song here? "So be good for goodness' sake."
Well, I don’t know how satisfying this will be for you, as it just raises more questions. But I would say the “then what?” is life. Estrangement from and rebellion toward God ultimately lead to death—which some will interpret as spiritual death, while others will understand more literally, though in an eternal rather than purely physical sense. As Paul says, “the wages of sin is death.” (Note, not sins, but sin—the condition or state of estrangement and rebellion.)
At-one-ment, reconciliation and restoration of right relationship, with God leads to life, life as it was meant to be. Per Jesus, “I came that they may have life and have it abundantly.”
Short answer: so that we can be like him.
Yes, I know. Looking around - and looking at me - there doesn't seem that much evidence that it's 'working'.
Have you got anything 'better'?
I know it sounds a cop-out but as with anything metaphysical we have to learn to live with paradox, ambiguity and 'mystery.'
This isn't a flat-pack furniture assembly diagram. Although those can be pretty mysterious too sometimes ...
Doublethink recently posted a study that IIRC found that the best way for an inspectorate to motivate organisations, such as care homes, to do good and live up to their responsibilities was neither to overlook wrongdoing, nor to condemn the agencies as wicked, but to treat the agencies as good but having done a bad thing that could be restored if the organisation mended its ways. That seems to me the basic Christian message, with two ways in which the church goes wrong alongside, either offering cheap grace (too easy forgiveness) or else being too condemnatory. Much of Christian theology is there to show that this is an expression of the nature of reality.
A lot of this only works for me in a Universalist framework. Why would I not still fear death if it means losing my nearest and dearest to oblivion at best and eternal torment at worst?
But yes, he was a universalist.
We're odd like that.
The late Metropolitan Kallistos Ware often veered very close to universalism I think.
I know some full on evangelical types who did so towards the end of their lives too.
We've had discussions here before about the efficacy of prayers for the dead.
My Protestant friends may disagree but I find that helpful whenever I feel a pang wondering what has become of departed relatives and friends who didn't openly profess any kind of faith.
'Will not the judge of all the earth do right?'
I thought I would look again at St John Chrysostom’s Homily 88 on the Gospel of Matthew. Because I remembered some things from my first reading of it.
A warning for any who might want to follow me. Some of it suggests an antisemitism. I think he expresses anger against the Jews who mocked Jesus on the Cross, because of their mockery. Thats not unreasonable but in my view his language goes too far.
But that is not what I want to point out. He does indeed refer to divine wrath and indignation. But what he sees, in the supernatural darkness and earthquakes, is divine anger being discharged through nature about the outrage committed against Jesus.
There is not a hint in his homily that on the cross where Jesus died the wrath of God was satisfied. That element in PSA is completely absent. Rather the emphasis is on victory over sin and death and Satan.
On reflection, for those who see wrath in God against sin, I find it curious that there is very little insight about what God might really be wrathful i.e God the Father indignant (a Chrysostom word) about what people are doing to his Son. It’s a very obvious point in the narrative.
Note I am not here knocking those who see no wrath in God. I am alluding to a flaw in the thinking behind the P is PSA.
However I’m not clear from the comments why some see substitution as unnecessary or objectionable. The Emmaeus Road account has Jesus saying it was necessary. So why was it necessary, if not as a substitutionary atonement?
Of course it displays the human evil of this very cruel punishment of the innocent. But surely rather more than that?
Here is the poignant quotation from Romans Chapter 5.
I do see that.
The wonder of the cross
(The typo in the link title is a fault, but one which should not distract).
Sadly, Chrysostom and other early Fathers could certainly veer into ugly antisemitic territory.
On the substitutionary element ...
This may sound pedantic but from what I've seen - and I'm no expert - those who downplay or deny any 'substitutionary' element appear to draw a distinction between the 'for us' element and the instead of us angle.
Whatever the case, I think it's true that Chrysostom and other Fathers emphasised the Cross and Resurrection as victory over sin, death and Satan.
For the Orthodox Church today that's the overwhelming emphasis and is very apparent at our Easter services.
Back in my evangelical Protestant days I felt that by eliding PSA this wasn't being 'tough on sin, tough on the causes of sin,' to borrow a Blairite phrase.
Gradually, I'm coming to realise that my reading of Romans and understanding of justification and so on was a very 'Western' one and informed by the controversies of the 16th century rather than how these things were understood previously or elsewhere in the Christian world.
That's not to dismiss or downplay the very real and knotty issues that the Reformers and Counter-Reformers were dealing with. But some of their contentions were less of an issue when approached from an Orthodox perspective where, to put it bluntly, there was less of a tendency to 'dichotomise' or set ideas in opposition to each other.
Putting it simply, we don't put faith over against works or scripture over against Tradition or ...
Now, I know I run the risk of caricaturing Protestant and RC 'takes' there and recognise there's a lot more nuance than that.
As I've said, I'm no expert and where I'm 'at' now I still see the substitutionary aspect there as you've outlined.
Others would probably disagree with me and suggest that I'm 'conditioned' to read substitutionary elements into the text from my Protestant evangelical spiritual formation.
Be that as it may, the thing for me to do is to hear both sides of these arguments and keep working them through, whether holding them in tension or coming down on one side or another.
As a 'both/and' person I sometimes ride two horses at once ...
Ultimately, though, it's not all about theories and perspectives but living in the good of what God in Christ has done for us - however we understand it to the limited extent we are able to do so.
We live between the now and the not yet.
Well said. Your penultimate paragraph is the key. Agree entirely.
A little translation issue re ὑπὲρ (hyper), the NT Greek for “for”. In the Romans 5 context it means “on behalf of”, rather than “instead of”. That makes a small but significant difference.
“Christ died on behalf of the ungodly. Christ died on behalf of us, while we were yet sinners.” I see that as substitutionary but not because of the Pauline interpretation point you rightly make. Simply because it is a perfectly reasonable interpretation. But it’s possible to see it differently. And I have no wish to talk past those who do.
See you on the other side of my holiday, God willing!
Just 10 minutes before I read this, my wife headed toward the door to go do Needful Things, and she spoke the words “I hate to leave you.” And that in turn prompted me to sing “So kiss me and smile for me.” Which she obligingly did.
/Soundtrack-of-my-mind tangent
And I’m a big John Denver fan. Farewell Nick, see you in a couple of weeks.
Safe travels!
Fair enough. I think I find his approach easier to cope with because I don't take it so seriously anymore. In a sense he makes a kind of specimen in my mind. Or maybe I have just forgotten.
(1) have life, though no one can say what kind of life (@Nick Tamen) beyond the otherwise earthly life we would have had without knowing atonement had occurred.
(2) can be like Jesus and/or God the Father (whatever 'be like' means) (@Gamma Gamaliel) which must mean more than being created in the gods' image and acquiring the knowledge of good and evil (like the gods)
(3) should feel motivated to feel gratitude and extend love, ostensibly for our Biblical neighbor (@Dafyd)
And this can be at all because Jesus experienced death (both physically and otherwise since the Apostle's Creed shares "he descended into hell"). Since none of us are physically getting out of here alive, one can gather that it is the Otherwise Death that Jesus endured from which we're being saved. Yes?
Of course, you may not buy what anyone says, and that’s totally up to you. I’m not here to talk you out of that. But that doesn’t mean they can’t tell us what kind of life; it means that you are convinced by what they tell us about what kind of life.
Are they all correct?
I suspect you'll make or ask for some kind of qualification for "correct," but that's really what I'm continually driving at -- what is correct -- especially, as it's been said repeatedly, the Bible doesn't actually say what the Bible says.
I’d say it seems to me that different underlying assumptions are at play, and that’s affecting how we each are reading posts in this thread.
Apart from everything else, isn’t “being good,” because goodness is right, in the order of the universe stemming from ultimate cosmic love, reason enough? This isn’t necessarily an exclusively Christian concept, of course.
There is an awesome Amy Grant song by that title:
https://youtu.be/ScUQDK_BgXw?si=mCvhwYh-zzGvfIsv
First, a minor correction. There is no wink or shrug involved here. There is only me attempting to describe (not explain) something God himself has left a mystery--how communion works, how the atonement itself works. Nobody's using "mystery" as a way of avoiding the requirement to think; rather, we're admitting that we haven't got sufficient data to do anything useful on the subject, at least as far as thinking goes.
I see you say of yourself that " I'm not a person for whom metaphysical "mystery" is an acceptable answer." That's a pity, and temperamentally I'm more of your camp than perhaps you realize. But there's not much any of us can do to wring additional data or explanations out of God when he chooses to withhold them.
In fact, it's one of the frustrating things about Jesus. He tends to be elusive, particularly with those who are not yet his disciples. So he talks to the crowds in parables, he plays rhetorical hide and seek with his enemies, and so forth. His disciples get explanations, though even the explanations sometimes make our heads spin. But there's something real there.
You ask "to what end?" meaning, I think, "To what end does the atonement exist--and more than that, are we told about it?"
I believe it's to this end:
28 Then they said to [Jesus], “What must we do, to be doing the works of God?”
29 Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.”
This is from John 6, and the context is a long, involved argument Jesus is having with some people who are fascinated by his miracles (in particular, the multiplication of loaves and fish) but want more than that (like a lifelong commitment to doing them daily for their benefit, again and again and again). Jesus won't make that commitment to them, and they are understandably frustrated. What is the value of a man who could feed the nation but refuses to be made a bread king? Ultimately they walk away.
From Jesus' point of view, however, the miracles are there to point them to the real Bread--that is, to Jesus himself, and to an ongoing knowledge, faith and confidence in him. Dare I say it, to a "relationship" with him. And immediately we're in the realm of metaphysical mystery, because Jesus clearly thought it possible for all these crowds of people to be joined to him in faith and trust, one by one by one, personally, even though a little thought would tell you that there's a sharp limit to the number of people any ordinary man can maintain a meaningful relationship with. What's more, he made it clear to his disciples that he expected them to go on making this invitation to people after his death and resurrection--so yeah, we're clearly in the realm of mystery. (It's also clear that Jesus considers himself much more than an ordinary man.)
At this point, there's not much more to say than what Philip said to Nathanael when he expressed doubt about the amazing new prophet they'd discovered: "Come and see for yourself." Jesus will tempt, will tantalize, will call people to himself through all sorts of means; but if they refuse to come to him and er, "try him out," well, there's not much anybody else can do. We can't argue you into anything. Jesus hasn't given us the wherewithal to do that. And I think that was on purpose. He doesn't believe in coercion, even logical coercion.
I’m no longer an active Host so it definitely isn’t my call. All the atonement theories interlink to some extent. and I think they all relate to some extent to the Jesus statement that he gives his life as a ransom for many.
Whether it widens the thread beyond the tolerance of Hosts probably depends on what interest it generates. Admin always have the capability of splitting a thread if that looks best.
Personally I’d give it a go to see what happens, but I suppose you could, as an alternative, PM a Host to get a prior view? I suppose one might drop in now after seeing your post?
I’m leaving, not on a jet plane (!), in about 4 hours, which is why I’m awake early. I’ll be interested in how it turns out. It’s definitely an intriguing idea!
Over to you!
That doesn't mean we have a 'copyright' on them nor that we treat them as 'Holy Writ'.
The fact that the ransom theory with its grotesque bait and switch tropes has fallen out of favour shows that we are (slightly) less fossilised than people think...
'Ransom' raises all sorts of issues of course. To whom is it 'paid'?
Much to discuss there but it'll be pretty academic as I doubt many, if any, of us here take a crudely transactional view of the atonement.
I do wish I still had the condolences of faith. Still, I continue to wrestle against the idea that it's impossible to know what is true about Christianity: what is accurate, what is correct, what is right. This atonement thread is just the latest example. Different traditions, different interpretations, different language, different Patriarchal prerogatives... it just leaves me frustrated. No one knows. No one can know. But so many people think they do. And they don't agree, sometimes, at all. Is that Christianity's greatest quality -- that it's an 'all sizes fit One' project? It seems clear enough that getting it wrong costs nothing. So few seem bothered by that. I don't get it. I don't get God's choice of substitutionary atonement as the necessary vehicle/mechanism. He's God -- he could have just decided we were atoned to himself. Right? That wasn't an option? There had to be a gruesome torturing and death of... God? I know, I know -- it's a mystery -- just embrace the mystery.
Reading through your struggles reminds me of the story of Jacob wrestling with God(?) through the night. Nothing wrong with that. In the end, God gives Jacob a blessing, and a new name Isreal. I would say part of faith is a continual contending with God. Faith implies questions. Contending with God implies a relationship with God that is dynamic, not passive.
Yes, there are different interpretations of many doctrines. Kind of like a series of blind people trying to describe an elephant. No one is completely correct. Another way of looking at it is like looking across the lake at a moon. Ultimately, we take a leap of faith, saying I believe, help thou, my unbelief.
Or Job! His “friends” (with friends like these, who needs enemies?…) think they have it all figured out in a kind of glib “blame the victim” way, but Job is the one who questions God, and while (1) he doesn’t get a clear answer of the kind he seeks, (2) God considers him righteous, even so much as to have him (3) pray for those “friends” who claimed they had it all figured out. I think there’s something extremely profound there in that story about our relationship with God and interacting with him even when we don’t have the answers.
If this was on Facebook, I would give a heart to it, so here it is: ❤️
And like, I’ve thought of the elephant parable. I think the various models of atonement are better understood as incomplete attempts to describe what we see, rather than as answers or explanations.
As @The_Riv rightly asks, why should a price have to be paid? I remember Douglas Adams making a similar point in one of the Hitchhiker books.
Is there really a Devil fostering deceit and evil? I think that’s what’s at the root of it. If human propensity to behave badly, causing hurt to self and others, is all that’s going on, then surely a benign deity doesn’t need to resort to such strange, harsh, complicated and confusing remedies?
Most, if not all, of the atonement concepts presuppose diabolical influence to be defeated. The ransom concept, in its original form as proposed by Origen, certainly did just that. The ransom price was Jesus’ death and descent to Hell and was paid to the devil to redeem humans from sin and death. The “bait and switch” was that the devil was tricked. He didn’t understand that Jesus could not be held in Hell. He would rise.
And from @The_Riv’s point of view that might be replacing a confusing necessity by an absurdity! Who could blame him?
Right! Now unpack! I’ll be interested in how you get on. Probably no WiFi for the next couple of weeks after today.
Everything else is (in a non-pejorative sense) speculation. It tries to be logically coherent speculation based on what we know of what Jesus reveals about God.
It's not a doctrine made up out of nothing and then fitted to the facts; it's an attempt to explain the facts.
Deeper magic from before the dawn of time?
Perhaps not surprising that C S Lewis, in his allegory, uses the term deeper magic?
Whether one believes in Christian ideas of atonement/reconciliation or not, I don’t think it’s accurate to suggest that those who do believe know the story isn’t true but have chosen to suspend that knowledge for the sake of engaging with the story. Rather, I think you have to start with an assumption that they believe the story to be true and, as @Dafyd suggested, are trying to describe with words and metaphors that make sense to them what they believe to be true.
I do happen to think that's as realistic a prospect for a Christian than anything else. "Lord, I believe. Help my unbelief." Do you know Christians who reject any of Jesus' miracles? I do. They know that Jesus didn't turn water into wine because that's not how chemistry works. They know that Jesus didn't walk on water because that's not how physics works. The list goes on. Christians don't believe those things, yet they persist in their Christianity. Virgin birth? Entirely optional, said by folks here on these hallowed boards. Those Christians are willfully suspending their disbelief about Jesus to engage with the larger story about Jesus. It's an incredibly adaptive faith in that regard. One can not believe all kinds of things included within the faith and still be well within the faith, and arguably as in as anyone else who believes more or differently. Maybe it's not a good holistic descriptor, but suspending disbelief is fairly accurate when the faith is taken in part.
You mention changing water into wine. Look at the full story. It is a wedding that is about to go bust. Jesus comes along and the best wine is served at the last. Kind of speaks to the difference between the end of the Isreal community and the beginning of the Christian Community.
To the point of Jesus walking on water, again look at the story. The disciples were struggling in turbulent waters when they see an apparition walking on the waters toward them. They realize it is Jesus, and the waters calm down. In Greek and Roman myths there are similar stories of heroes calming the water The story is very similar to one where Orion walks on water. The boat the disciples were sailing in is often a symbol of the church. When their eyes are not on Jesus, things can get rough. When they look to Jesus, the seas are calm Ses are also symbols of evil.
Whether I can attest to these miracles were historical or not, they do present certain truths in a symbolic way that I can preach on.
To The_Riv—thank you for your kind reply. I do think it is possible to know the truth—about Christ and what he teaches. Jesus told us, “ “My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me. If anyone's will is to do God's will, he will know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own authority” (John 7:16-17). Hey, it works for me—and I was not always a Christian.
I can’t explain why God chose to do things the way he did. He hasn’t told us, and I don’t expect him to explain himself to me! But no, I don’t expect anyone to just accept that “it’s a mystery, so stop thinking,” either. Jesus invites people to dig into what he says and does, and I’m glad, because that suits the kind of person I am—someone who doesn’t trust very easily at all.
You mention “suspended disbelief.” That’s not what it feels like to me at all, and I’m an English lit student. I know suspension of disbelief when I feel it!
What it feels like, is primary belief. That is, the same kind of belief that I have for the events of my own life, or for things my husband tells me—and I’ve known him more than 40 years. I’m not suspending my disbelief because I’m captivated by the story. Rather, I believe the story to be true, as Nick says; and I believe it because I know Jesus Christ, and I find him utterly trustworthy.
That’s a personality thing, really. I didn’t always know him, and it took me a long time to trust him, and I still don’t trust him as he deserves. But I’ve never found him to ring false. When he says something, and I can test it, it comes out true. As a result, when he says something I can’t test, I trust him on it.
I’m sure you’ve got people in your own life that you trust like that—people who, if they told you something you’d normally disbelieve, you’d take another look—and a third, and a fourth—because of the person you know who’s vouching for it.
Really, the whole thing stands or falls on the person of Jesus Christ. If he is the person I’ve come to know, well, then, I can believe any number of miracles. And I will also agree to do any number of things that I’d normally not do, not being a glutton for punishment—such as the refugee work we’re involved in. Or forgiving and working with someone who did a pretty good job of messing up my life 25 years ago.
I’m mentioning these because you have the right to know if I’m actually putting my eggs in Jesus’ basket, if you see what I mean. Do I really trust him? Enough to do this, at least. And it’s not magic, or suspension of disbelief, or not understanding science, or anything else. It’s because of the person he is.