Dynamic Yet Consistent

I am not a very sentimental person and rarely get caught up in traditions or holidays, but today represents a significant day of remembrance as we honor Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.  This man was so influential in my life and my understanding of the world that we named our daughter after him (Mikayla Lillian Kickert).  It was an honor this morning to march along side my brothers and sisters and to have my daughter join us.  Here is a picture of me and little MLK from this morning and a shot from the march:

If you haven’t already done it, please take the time to listen to MLK’s prophetic “I have a dream” speech.  I still cannot listen to it without tearing up.  I have included it below for your convenience

Finally, I want to share with you a prayer that I wrote several years ago to commemorate the day.  The following is an invocation written in 2008 for the annual MLK remembrance service in Bowling Green.  It is inspired by the UMC Book of Worship prayer for such occasion.

God of all creation, we stand together today and acknowledge your presence among us as we seek to be your people united in love.  As we worship today, we pray that you grant us a glimpse of your Kingdom. A kingdom where everything is made new and all nations walk together in the light of your Glory.

We thank you for your servant Martin Luther King Jr. who lived out the principles of your kingdom, and through his prophetic voice, offered the vision of what could be.  May we be challenged by his courage, emboldened by his passion, and inspired by his actions.  But heavenly father, may we not rest of the laurels of his godly work, but instead strive together to bring deeper love and greater unity as we all seek to live out your calling on our lives.  May we, even today, experience the same divine discontent that spurred Dr. King to be a voice for justice and an advocate for love.

Today we remember the conviction of Dr. King, who said:

Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.

Therefore, let us pray for courage and determination for those who are oppressed.  And at the same time, may we not be blind to the oppression we bring, nor deaf to the voices crying against it.
Today we remember Dr. King’s words that

True peace is not the absence of tension, but the presence of justice.

Therefore let us pray not only for relief from tensions and conflicts, but for a just and compassionate world.  May those who work for peace in our world be those crying loudest for justice and may we find peace not in the comforts of life, but in the tension that comes from standing in the gap.
Today we remember Dr. King’s insight that:

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere, because we are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality tied in a single garment of destiny,

Therefore, let us pray that we may see nothing in isolation, but instead find ourselves unified in love and perfected in peace.  May we rejoice with those rejoicing, and mourn with those morning.  And today father, may we join the struggles of those bothers and sisters throughout the world who are striving for peace and justice.
Today we remember Dr King’s lament that:

The contemporary church is often a weak, ineffectual voice with an uncertain sound, often the arch-supporter of the status quo. 

Therefore, let us pray that neither those gathered here today nor any congregation of Christ’s people may be silent in the face of wrong, but that we may be disturbers of the status quo when it comes into conflict with God’s Kingdom.

Finally, we remember Dr. King’s prophetic words that:

The dark clouds of racial prejudice will soon pass away and the deep fog of misunderstanding will be lifted from our fear drenched communities and in some not too distant tomorrow the radiant stars of love and brotherhood will shine over our great nation with all their scintillating beauty.

Therefore, in faith, let us contend against evil and make no peace with oppression so that we join in the legacy of Dr. Martin King Jr. and work together to fulfill the vision he shared of your Kingdom come. 

Lord, while we still hear jangling discords in our nations, may we be beautiful notes in the symphony of brotherhood. 

In the name of Jesus, the Prince of Peace we pray, Amen.

It is bad enough that your theology is atrocious… must you really play the “God’s Wrath” card within 24 hours of the most devastating natural disaster since the tsunami.

I would break down all the theological errors and examples of eisegesis in this argument that God is punishing the Haitians, but the hateful, tactless Pat Robertson does not even deserve a response.

I don’t know if you all have seen this yet, so I thought I would share.  It is a satirical piece by Ray Stephens entitled “Would Jesus wear a Rolex.”  In addition to the video, I have included the lyrics below.

Obviously the song is written in a humorous way, but many truths are told in jest. Would Jesus wear a Rolex? Would he have a 52″ television? Would he drive a Lexus? Would he drive at all? Would he take a $100K+ salary? Would he take any salary? Would he live a life of luxury? Would he live like an average American?

I have a sneaking suspicion we all know the answers to these questions, but are we bold enough to try and follow his standard?

Woke up this mornin’, turned on the t.v. set.
there in livin’ color, was somethin’ I can’t forget.
This man was preachin’ at me, yeah, layin’ on the charm
askin’ me for twenty, with ten-thousand on his arm.
He wore designer clothes, and a big smile on his face
tellin’ me salvation while they sang Amazin’ Grace.
Askin’ me for money, when he had all the signs of wealth.
I almost wrote a check out, yeah, then I asked myself

(chorus)

Would He wear a pinky ring, would He drive a fancy car?
Would His wife wear furs and diamonds, would His dressin’ room have a star?
If He came back tomorrow, well there’s somethin’ I’d like to know
Could ya tell me, Would Jesus wear a Rolex on His television show.

Would Jesus be political if He came back to earth?
Have His second home in Palm Springs, yeah, a try to hide His worth?
Take money, from those poor folks, when He comes back again,
and admit He’s talked to all them preachers who say they been a talkin’ to Him?

(chorus)

Just ask ya’ self, Would He wear a pinky ring,
Would He drive a fancy car?
Would His wife wear furs and diamonds, would His dressing room have a star?
If He came back tomorrow, well there’s somethin’ I’d like to know:
Could ya tell me, would Jesus wear a Rolex,
Would jesus wear a Rolex
Would Jesus wear a Rolex
On His television show-ooh-ooh?

Christmas is about incarnation.

In the history of creation, there is not a more significant event than when YHWH is incarnated among his people in the form of a helpless baby in the manger.  Love comes near.  Presence is the linchpin to redemption.  The restoration of humanity comes when God takes his place in the nitty-grittyness of daily life.

God is found not in the temple, or in the mighty cosmos, but in the sweaty stinky filth of a manger.  A perfect blend of sacred and secular.  It is through the ordinary and the forgotten that salvation finally comes.  The path is ignoble and not paved in gold.  Those first reached are not the holy, but the mundane.

This is the mode of operation YHWH chooses to use.  The incarnation points to the God we serve.  It calls us to a way of living and loving in its simple form.  Even now God uses a fallen people to be his agents of redemption.  The mission of the church is reflected in this: incarnation.  God is found in and among his people as they are found among the poor and marginalized.  Presence.

Evil in conquered and hope is restored through the weakness of a infant born to teenage peasants in a world of oppression.

Incarnation.

A few days ago I asked, “Are the sins of the church more grievous for those who believe in God or those who do not?”  Now I want to take the time to unpack that a bit more.

Regardless of who you are or where you come from, it is not hard to find things to criticize the church for: There is the clergy sexual abuse cases and financial scandals.  You have the stories of people like Jimmy Swaggart and Ted Haggard.  There is corruption and abuse of power at every level.  Countless Christian churches and organizations are known more for their hate and bigotry than their love.  We have pastors who wear Rolexes while people starve.  And all of this happens in the name of God.

So who should find this more appalling?  Is this type of behavior more troublesome for Christians or for those who do not beleive?

On one hand, those who have experienced the radical love and grace of Jesus should find these acts particularly disturbing because they tarnish the face of Christianity.  If you have found your life woven into the tapestry of the Christian story then stains on the fabric reflect and affect you.  Only those who fully grasp the message can realize just how contradictory these corporate sins are.

Yet on the other hand, if you reject the story of God and Christianity, the inconsistencies are even more glaring.  There are been countless acts of violence and hate committed in the name of God.  How much worse are those acts if God does not even exist.  It is one thing to bomb an abortion clinic if you are doing it because you think you are purifying society in God’s name.  But, if there is no God then these actions are completely lacking justification.

It is one thing for pastors to live extravagant lives built upon people’s tithes (literally money given to God) if they think it is justified by scripture.  But, if God does not exist then these people are diverting people’s charity without furthering any noble cause.

I don’t have the answer to these questions, but I can say this.  As I have allowed myself to wrestle with the notion that there may not be an all powerful God who is active in creation, I find my displeasure with the church exponentially increasing.  If God does not exist then humanity has spent an inordinate amount of time and resources on petty and self-seeking things when those same resources could have been leveraged to bettering all of creation.

Just think if we had built hospitals and schools instead of sanctuaries and steeples.  What if we had sent people to heal the sick instead of convert the heathens?    Imagine a world where instead of paying pastors we paid to provide clean drinking water and basic health care to all people.

Only those inside the church can understand the true message of the church and realize the depth of grace, love and forgiveness this institution is called to.  But at the same time, we need to hear the voice of those on the outside as they lament what could have been.

Masturbation is the epitome of selfishness and represents the degradation and perversion of something selfless and beautiful.  Unfortunately the church (especially in America) can, and often does, display this same behavior.

However you look at it, masturbation is completely self-pleasing.  There is no consideration of others; all actions are based on selfish desires that are fulfilled in the easiest way possible.  It is often based in fantasies that are degrading and show fictive dominance.  It replaces relationships with internal transactions.  What is most troubling is that masturbation is based on something that is sacred and special: the sexual relationship between two people who love each other.  Sex provides intimate depth to relationships and has the potential to be an amazing example of self-less mutual pleasure.  Masturbation short-circuits all of this.

I have been in too many situations where local churches also short-circuit a beautiful design and replace it with something self-seeking.  The church is called to be the bride of Christ, the very hands and feet of an incarnate God.  The church is God’s agent of reconciliation in this hurting world.  The church is called to see a a better world and to partner with God to bring that about.  The church should be an outpost of hope by being a collection of broken people who find hope and direction in the promise of something more.  Yet all of this can get traded for a structure that is self-pleasing, lacks consideration for others, seeks easy fulfillment for selfish desires, can be degrading and dominant, and replaces relationships with internal transactions.  The existence of many churches is nothing more than a source of masturbatory fulfillment for its members.

This critique is most evident when one explores the finances of most churches.  Members “tithe” and “give their money to God” yet if you follow the paper trail, most of that money comes back to the members.  It is like a pay-as-you-can country club.    Consider this:

• In the United States roughly 1/3 of all tax-deductible donations went to houses of worship.
• That amounts to over 103 BILLION dollars ($130,000,000,000.00)
• Of that, “85 percent of all church activity and funds are directed toward the internal operations of the congregation”
• That means “Christians” spend over 87 BILLION dollars, money that was supposedly “given to God,” to benefit themselves.

According to a recent Christianity Today article:

The money given by the people in the pews, it turns out, is largely spent on the people in the pews. Only about 3 percent of money donated to churches and ministries went to aiding or ministering to non-Christians.

Talk about self-pleasuring!

It is troubling enough to see how selfish church budgets actually are. But, what is most devastating and deceptive is the fact that we do this in the name of God and think we are fulfilling his will.  We take the image of being faithful and stroke our own desires and needs with it.  We convince ourselves we are being self-sacrificing, but at the end of the day we are only meeting our own needs (not only within the church, but our need to feel we have contributed).

Lifeway Research presents similar findings.

It goes beyond just money.  Think about volunteer work within the church.  In your congregation what percent of opportunities to serve are simply tasks that are necessary to perpetuate the current structure.  Are these things actually furthering the Kingdom of God, or are they simply making sure we can enjoy the worship services and opportunities we have come to expect.

This self-seeking understanding of church and Christianity is deeply ingrained in how we think:

• We choose churches where the worship matches our preferences and the pastors are entertaining.
• We expect churches to provide programs that meet our needs.
• Welcome gifts are the norm – we are literally spending money on people so that they are more likely to join our selfish structure.  Tell me this, if someone comes in church with real hurt and needs redemption, is a coffee cup going to heal them?
• We market our churches (intentionally and unintentionally) so that we can appeal to the aesthetic needs of people and not the spiritual needs of people.
• Our sermons tend to focus on feel-good motivation and “practical application” and often avoids the difficult reality of who we are and we are called to be.  There is no expectation of real sacrifice.
• Very few churches reflect the diverse tapestry of the communities they serve.  How often do prostitutes and CEOs find themselves in the same Sunday School class?

We expect churches to meet our needs.  And by participating we not only personally reap the benefits, but we feel like we are fulfilling our spiritual obligations.  Instead of spiritual masturbating in private, we flaunt it in public, which makes it all the more disgusting.

Church Staff and Porn

If we are going to explore the nature of the church, we have to be willing to examine how church staffs operate.  The typical church budget pays out 50% for staff salaries.  A full half of our giving goes to pay professional spiritual people.  If churches themselves are examples of auto-erotic hedonism, then I believe the way we view church staff is not much different than the way individuals use pornography.

• Porn employs professionals to “do the dirty work” so actual relationships are not needed.
• Porn stimulates you so feel like you are in the experience when actually you have no real connection to what is going on.
• Porn is on demand you can call on it when you need to.  They work to fulfill your needs.
• Porn stars fake it so you get a better show.

Having worked at a church for several years, I know first hand that these are true of how staff are utilized as well.

• Parishioners feel like they are connected to “God’s Work” because they pay the salaries of people to actually do the things.  There is little need connect with actual people.  We expect the pastor to visit the sick, study the word, pray with the dying, help the needy.  As long as someone is doing those things we feel fulfilled.
• We expect church staff to not only do our spiritual dirty work, but also to meet our needs.  As long as our kids have good programming, the sermon is not boring and worship is engaging, we are happy.  We are more likely to criticize a pastor for not providing us with what we expect than we are to criticize the work they do beyond the walls of the church.
• Church staff members know they have to make things look good.  “Spiritual” words are sown into conversations to make things appear to be more important than they are.  We call mundane upkeep “ministry” so that people don’t realize we are still just reinforcing a selfish structure.

Don’t get me wrong, I know a good number of pastors and staff members who are embodying and expanding the incarnational love of Christ.  We can’t blame staff for the problems of the church — we are all in this together.  That being said, we must all acknowledge that paying pastors 6 figures while ignoring the plight of the poor and marginalize can be described as nothing short of sin.

Conclusion

In a world where 30,000 children die every day of preventable diseases, malnutrition and unclean water, and where the poorest 40 percent of the world’s population accounts for only 5 percent of global income, it is unacceptable for the church to sit around pleasuring itself.  We can no longer be content with a view of Christianity that encourages selfishness while feeding the illusion of spiritual depth and community impact.  If the result of our involvement in church is that we feel better about ourselves, but do not understand how we can participate in the larger redemptive work of a loving God, then we are done nothing more than masturbated our needs and egos in the name of Christ.

I am a discontent person.  Just ask my wife or co-workers.

Its not that I walk around all day and mope about how life sucks and I got the short end of the stick; far from it.  I feel incredibly lucky.  I have a great family, a wonderful life and the freedom to do the things I enjoy.

For me, discontentment is not about what we have or our personal lives, but rather it is about the way things could be.  I become discontent when I believe there is a better way.  I am the kind of guy who can spend an hour trying to figure out the best way to do a 15 minute task. [Side Story: When I kid I was responsible for bringing up the firewood to the house.  I tried every conceivable way to make the process easier but usually ended up carrying it up by hand.  After a year or two I finally realized the shortest way was not the best way and was able to perfect “The Wheel Barrel Technique” and thus finally suceeded at finding “The Better Way.”]

I tend to look at the world in the same way.  Sure there is a lot of good going on — especially in this country, but I refuse to be content because I know things can be better.  I am convinced this is because of my understanding of the Christian Narrative.  The story of God’s interaction with Creation and Humanity is not about a magic wand where all things are set right (I would even argue the cross is not the final solution).  Instead, it a constantly evolving story of redemption where each generation is called to take the torch and continue to partner with YHWH in making the world a better place.  The message of Creator-God is constant: I will bless my people so that they can be a blessing to ALL THE NATIONS.

Yes I am discontent.  But, that is because I refuse to be content in a world where there is still genocide and human trafficking and corporate exploitation and racism and rape as a weapon of war and….

It would easy to curl up into a ball and enjoy my happy life.  To be thankful that my family has healthcare and a warm home.  To use my disposable income for personal pleasures and to ignore the plight of so many who do with so little.  But I can’t.  I can’t because I don’t believe we have yet arrived.  I don’t believe where we are as a community, country, society, world is good enough.  I am discontent because I believe there is a better way.  I believe we have a long way to go and I want to be a part of getting there.

Below I have included a video (I am pretty sure you are going to have to go to youtube to watch it) and the lyrics from one of my favorite songs: Better Way by Ben Harper.  He has one stanza that I often repeat to myself whenever I find myself moving from a healthy discontentment into cynicism: What good is a man who won’t take a stand // What good is a cynic with no better plan.

In looking to live out “a better way” I am constantly aware that it is not enough to simply be discontent with the way things are, but we must be active in bringing it about.  It is like Gandhi said: “You must be the change you wish to see.”

Better Way – Ben Harper

I’m a living sunset
Lightning in my bones
Push me to the edge
But my will is stone

Fools will be fools
And wise will be wise
But i will look this world
Straight in the eyes

What good is a man
Who won’t take a stand
What good is a cynic
With no better plan

Reality is sharp
It cuts at me like a knife
Everyone i know
Is in the fight of their life

Take your face out of your hands
And clear your eyes
You have a right to your dreams
And don’t be denied

I believe in a better way

Don’t you hate it when a good word gets so loaded with baggage as to render it unhelpful.  My friend Terry is like this with the word soviets, which refer to small local governing bodies which care for themselves (like sustainable communities); you can’t really refer to soviets without spending a few minutes explaining the idea first.

I feel the same way with words like evangelical/evangelist/evangelism/etc.  These words are based on the greek word euaggelion which literally means “good news.”  In the contemporary American context we have narrowly defined this concept so that it describes “sharing your faith” or something similar. An Evangelist is someone who preaches about sin and salvation and evangelism means you invite someone to accept Jesus as their savior.

The problem with these narrow definitions is that they ignore the breadth of what the Good News (of the Kingdom of God) really encompasses.  The good news is not just about being forgiven of your sins so that you can go to heaven.  Instead, the good news is that complete redemption and restoration that has been initiated and one day will full come.  Through Christ:

• Our relationship with creation, humanity, ourselves, and our God will be restored.
• A corrupt earth will be redeemed and set right.
• Pain and sorrow and death will be wiped away.
• The poor will eat, the blind will see, the lame will walk, and the prisoners will be set free.
• Those on the outside will invited in.

And that is just the start of it.  The Good News is holistic and encompasses all things being set right.  Our sin being forgiven so we can go heaven is just one small part of it.  How many tracts have you seen that take all this into consideration?

What bothers me more than the truncation of the concept is the understanding that the Good News is all about a message.  Even if you preach a holistic understanding of the gospel (which by the way is how euaggelion is most often translated) but consider it only a message, then you are missing the point entirely.

The Good News is about embodiment.  It is about being caught up in the story.  It is about being transformed, but also about being an agent of transformation.

Just consider these passages from the ministry of Jesus:

Jesus went throughout Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the good news of the kingdom, and healing every disease and sickness among the people.  News about him spread all over Syria, and people brought to him all who were ill with various diseases, those suffering severe pain, the demon-possessed, those having seizures, and the paralyzed, and he healed them. ~Matthew 4:23-24

Jesus went through all the towns and villages, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the good news of the kingdom and healing every disease and sickness. When he saw the crowds, he had compassion on them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd. ~Matthew 9:35-36

You see, the proclamation of the Good News is followed by, and confirmed with, the demonstration of Good News.

This brings me back to my original point about words that have lost their full meaning because of baggage.  We should not understand evangelists as simply those who proclaim the good news, but rather, an evangelist should be one who practices the good news as well.

I would be a lot more willing to openly declare myself an evangelical if people understood the entirety of what that word means.  Likewise, I wish when people think of evangelists they didn’t stop with the great proclaimers like Billy Graham, but would also include the great practitioners like Martin Luther King Jr.

The Gospel only make sense when the message is lived out and demonstrated by those who have been transformed by it.

Technically I can put the letters “Rev.” in front of my name.  That is because the United Methodist Church recognizes me as a pastor.  Although I am not employed by a church, I am appointed as a local pastor to a church.  Practically this means I can marry and bury, consecrate communion and baptize.  Sometimes it also means people look at (to) me differently.  I am not sure how I feel about that.

Today I was in a meeting at church when one of the people there received the awful news that her mother had passed away.  She took a phone call in the hallway and instantly began sobbing.  Someone commented that it was unfortunate that all the other pastors were away meeting with the Bishop.

That bothered me.  Not because they were gone, or because I was viewed differently than the “employed” pastors.  It bothered me because I realize there is nothing special a pastor could do in that situation.  What this person needed was a shoulder to cry on, and someone to pray with her, and people to support her.  It doesn’t take someone with a fancy white collar or special letters in front of their name to do that.

A friend of mine passed on a thought to me the other day.  He was talking about the formation of the Quaker church and the way it was received.  At one point the Quakers, who function largely under the guidance of the congregation members, are asked why they are trying to get rid of the clergy.  Their response was this: “We are not trying to get rid of the clergy, we are trying to get rid of the laity.”

Wow… that is big stuff.  It is not that pastors are unimportant, it is that everyone is important… and called… and empowered.

I left the full-time ministry nearly 2 years ago.  One of the main reasons I left was because I was not comfortable with being paid to “pastor.”  I felt weird taking people’s tithe money in exchange for services that all Christians were called to do (i.e. visit the sick, help the poor, study and proclaim the word, etc.)  It wasn’t just that I felt I should be doing these things without pay, it was that I realized I was in a very real way preventing others from doing what they needed to be doing.  It is easy to pass things off to a pastor when you don’t feel comfortable with doing them (after all, it can be awkward to talk about Jesus, or counsel a person who is dying, or pray with a grieving spouse).  Plus… isn’t that what we pay pastors to do… might as well get your money’s worth.

Now I realize that some pastors have extensive training that the average parishioner does not have.  I think we need people who are well trained to teach the scriptures, and I think we need people with special talents and skills to provide loving counseling.  But at the same time, when people look to pastors instead of to themselves to be the hands and feet of God then we are in trouble.  Anytime a person pulls back from ministry because they feel they can’t do it because they are not a pastor, we are all the lesser.

Pastors have no special line to God, their prayers are no more effective and their crap still stinks.  You should avoid at all costs a pastor who tells you otherwise.  If you knew the problems I deal with and the doubts I still have, you would not look up to me with special eyes just because of a title (and I would guess this is true of most pastors).

What was great to see today was that in the end, no one disqualified themselves from ministering to this woman because they lacked the title.  No one called for a pastor in the same way you call for a doctor when someone is having a seizure.  No one hesitated in offering their care because there was not a staff pastor on site.

That my friends is how the Body of Christ is supposed to work.  That is what things look like when we all realized we are called to be a redemptive force in the world.   And that is what happens when people realize that just because pastors can sign a wedding certificate and bless the bread, we are all called and empowered to be agents of restoration and redemption.

One of the hallmarks of evangelical theology is the concept of penal substitution.  Basically this is a form of substitutionary atonement theory which states Jesus died on the cross in place of sinners in order to satisfy the penalty of their sin.  In other words, the death of Christ is substituted for the punishment sinners should receive (which is generally understood to be “death” and separation from God.)  Christ takes our punishment so we can be forgiven.  When you hear a pastor say “Christ died for my/your sins” what you are hearing is an articulation of substitutionary atonement.

Crucifixion, D. Velázque, 17th c.

This idea of atonement has origins going back to the early church fathers, but its formal outline is generally attributed to the 11th century monk Anselm of Canterbury who preferred to talk of “satisfaction” rather than of “substitution”  (Christ’s death was a satisfactory sacrifice for our sins rather than a substitution for the penalties of our sins).  It was further developed and brought to wide spread acceptance by John Calvin and the reformers.  It should be noted that while penal substitution is certainly favored by evangelical (especially reformed) Christians/churches/theologians, it is not the only theory of atonement. Two of the other major atonement theories are: Moral influence (Christ’s death show perfect obedience and love), and Ransom / Christus Victor (Christ was the ransom for humanity’s debt to Satan.)   Other theories often combine / tweak concepts found in these approaches.

Penal substitution is based on a few premises.

• God requires punishment for our sins to be forgiven.  (If you go with Anselm’s satisfaction concept, you would say God requires sacrifice for our sins to be forgiven).
• The death of Christ covers the punishment / sacrifice for all sinners.

It is with this second point that things get tricky.  First, we must ask, “who is covered by this.”  Those in the reformed camp will say it is only for the elect — that is, those whom God has predestined to be saved.  Those in the free will camp will say it available for all, but only effective for those who trust in Jesus.  Finally, those in the universalist camp will say all people are covered regardless of status.   When we begin to ask who is covered by the sacrificial act of the cross, we begin to get into the fuzzy math of substitutionary atonement theory.

This leads me to a question I have pondered for years and have yet to hear a satisfactory answer:

How can the death of one person be the acceptable substitute for the sins of all humanity?

Let’s walk through the court room imagery upon which this theory is based.  So I die and stand before my creator.  God says to me, “It looks like you have sinned and thus you must be punished.”  At that point Jesus comes in and says, “I don’t want him to be punished, since I have lived a sinless life, let me stand in his place.”  Jesus is then led to the cross and crucified.

Okay, that works out great, until the next sinner comes before the throne of judgment.  Presumably Jesus is allowed to stand in my place because he lived a sin free life and is the only person in the history of the world who does not deserve punishment / judgment for sin.  His life for mine – its a fair trade.  But now that Jesus’ perfect life has been traded for my life, what is left to be traded (substituted)?

The problems don’t stop there.  If we are truly talking about the substitution of a penalty, we must examine the trade closer.   In the way this theory is generally taught, we avoid damnation (judgment) because Christ voluntarily died on the cross.  But, we must admit this is not a fair trade.  Christ experienced physical death that lasted 3 days.  Sinners on the other hand would experience eternal damnation (in addition to physical death) if it was not for the work of Christ.  Again… this does not seem to be a fair trade.

So at the end of the day, the equation looks like this:

3 Days of physical death by sinless man = eternal damnation for countless people and their lifetimes of sin

I am sorry, but that math just doesn’t work out.

The books are obviously being cooked in some way.  I have heard people claim that this equation still works because it was not just a man who died, but it was God himself.  That seems logical, but then at the end of the day we still run into problems.  How can it be a trade if God in fact did not die and did not experience damnation.  The need for judgment still has not been satisfied.  And, if we assume that this equation meets God’s standards so God can still be just, we must ask why it had to happen at all.  If God can determine what meets the standards of a fair trade, it can be assumed that he could also waive the need for a penalty.

Now lets get back to another question: who is covered by this act?  Even if somehow the math works out, and the death of one god-man can cover infinite sinful lives, then why wouldn’t this lead to universal salvation?  Why must people individually accept this sacrifice?  If it has the power to cover the sins of all, then why would it not be extended to all, especially if we believe God desires none to perish. (There are certainly some people who think that God does in fact desire some to perish, but that is an entirely different conversation into the nature of a loving God.)

The problem is not alleviated if you take Anselm’s view of satisfaction over substitution.  It does answer a few more questions because the Old Testament does teach of a sacrafice that covers an entire group of people (i.e. on the Day of Atonement)  but at the end of the day you run into the same problems concerning who is covered by this act (along with some new problems: Does God allow for, and indeed propagate, human sacrifice?).

I will be the first to admit, these are not easy questions and I do not profess to have the answers.  The things we are dealing with here are of the utmost theological importance.  We are talking about the very nature of Christ, his mission, and its effect on our relationship with God.  When we talk about atonement, we are talking about how God interacts with and responds to humanity and vice versa.  This is no minor matter.

But at the same time, I fear we have all to often assumed the only orthodox understanding of atonement is that of penal substitution without first examining the workings of such a theory.  Its not that I reject this approach, its that I don’t understand it.  This post is a sincere effort to work through my questions and I invite all my friends who take this approach to help me understand it.