A new, human, celebratory Theology
In his recent May 28, 2008 piece entitled "Evolution and Homosexuality: The Twin Terrors of the Christian Church", Bishop John Shelby Spong wrote of "a new, human, celebratory theology struggling to be born. In this new theology the call of the Christ figure is not to rescue the sinner so that the sinner can become the abuser of others; it is rather to empower us to become so fully human that we do not need a victim to victimize, but can become a new humanity, people who are not struggling to survive, but who are capable of giving our life and love away. A fully human Jesus, a new way, besides sacrifice, to view the cross and a new meaning to be found in early
Christian creed that in Jesus God has been engaged, will be the hallmarks of this new theology. It is time for the Christian Church to make this shift in a conscious way."
To gain a perspective on this I return to events of the early Christian church, which I will then update to today's world. In the Council of Carthage in 418, Augustine managed to have the teachings of Pelagius and Celestine declared heresys. Pelagius stressed the essential goodness of human nature and freedom of the human will. He rejected the idea that sin exists because of human weakness, that God made human beings free to choose between good and evil, that sin is a voluntary act committed by a person against God's law. Celestius, his follower, denied the doctrine of original sin and the necessity of infant baptism.
Pelagius further taught that Adam's fall condemned man by a bad example, that Grace was helpful but not essential. Christ's good example offered humanity a path to salvation, not through sacrifice but free will.
Augustine, in direct contrast, held that all humans are profoundly tainted by original sin, that the baptized Christian is still an invalid in need of church aid, that human will is caught in a dark internal labyrinth of untamable compulsions, that no one is strong enough to save himself without God's Grace and the help of the Church. Man is too depraved to be worthy of God except through His grace. In summary, for him there is only one story; creation, fall, and redemption and only two players, God and humanity.
To add further perspective I turn to Stephen Mitchell. In his book The Gospel of Jesus, Mitchell presents the idea that God deliberately chose Jesus to be conceived in an unwed mother, Mary. In those days in Jewish society being an illegitimate child was the worst of all human conditions. Only when Joseph married her did Jesus gain legitimacy. Thus God chose Jesus to be born the lowest of the low, to give him as humble a beginning as possible to show God's unconditional love for all humans. Jesus would then be open and accepting of all persons; thieves, murderers, adulterers, wealthy consummed in the material world, and the like; no one was beyond redemption. Jesus is the channel for God's Grace, God engaged in the world, The Wayshower, a redeemer of all transgressions and transgressors.
Further perspective can be added by returning to Bishop Spong's essay cited above. As Augustine's philosophy of human depravity prevailed 1,500 years ago, Bishop Spong sees the great harm it has done. "From the insights of psychiatry we know the powerful truth that people who are abused, hurt and violated tend to become those who abuse, hurt and violate. It should not surprise us, therefore, to find in Christian history a pattern of constant and consistent victimization. Victimized people must always have a victim onto whom their defined negativity can be transferred. That is why the Christian Church thoroughout its history has always had a "designated victim" who could be publically persecuted, some one to absorb the self hatred this understanding of God forced us to bear."
Bishop Spong then goes on to list first the Jews, then the heretics burned at the stake, then scientists such as Galeleo, Copernicus and Darwin, followed by those enslaved in service to human masters (particularly from Africa), then women who were forced to accept second class status, and now homosexuals. I would add to his list, since 9/11, Muslims and now undocumented workers, immigrants striving to simply realize their dreams of prosperity.
Returning once again to Stephen Mitchell I'll conclude with this. "What is the gospel according to Jesus? Simply this: that the love we all long for in our innermost heart
is already present, beyond longing." He emphasizes that "Like all great spiritual Masters, Jesus taught one thing only: presence. Ultimate reality, the luminous, compassionate intelligence of the universe, is not somehere else, in some heaven light-years away. It did not manifest itself any more fully to Abraham or Moses that us, nor will it be any more present to some Messiah at the far end of time. It is always right here, right now. That is what the Bible means when it says that God's true name is I AM."
Hence a new, human, celebratory theology, one that stresses the essential goodness of God and his creations, we humans, that recognizes that human free will and full responsibiity for the consequences for our actions are of equal necessity; one that sees and celebrates the equality of all human beings, in a universe that is intimately interconnected, interactive and interdependent. A fully socially responsible theology for the modern age.
- anElder's blog
- Login or register to post comments
More scripture supporting Augustine's premise
Rich, here is another scriptural encapsulation of the gospel that is reflective of Augustine's reasoning in his debate with Pelagius. This passage, coupled with many others of similar content, convey a consistent message of sinners needing a Savior and His saving grace. It seems to be thematically central throughout scripture.
I puzzle over why Pelagius or Spong would choose to dismiss such a foundational concept and replace it with one that offers no real hope to those bound up in sin. I mean come on...the last thing an addict needs to hear is "Fix yourself." He/she stands in desperate need of Jesus and His enduring mercy, grace, healing, deliverance and salvation.
Titus 3:3 At one time we too were foolish, disobedient, deceived and enslaved by all kinds of passions and pleasures. We lived in malice and envy, being hated and hating one another. 4 But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, 5 he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, 6 whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life. 8 This is a trustworthy saying. And I want you to stress these things, so that those who have trusted in God may be careful to devote themselves to doing what is good. These things are excellent and profitable for everyone.
Pelagius Nor Spong Can Improve the Gospel of Jesus
Bishop Spong wrote, "In this new theology the call of the Christ figure is not to rescue the sinner so that the sinner can become the abuser of others; it is rather to empower us to become so fully human that we do not need a victim to victimize..."
What is new about this particular theological statement? I have never heard of a theology that advocates abusing or victimizing anyone. The Gospel of Jesus is one of peace. The New Testament consistently holds up the highest standards of human conduct as exampled by the "golden rule."
Rich wrote, "In the Council of Carthage in 418, Augustine managed to have the teachings of Pelagius and Celestine declared heresy."
It should be noted that these verdicts of heresy were reached after much debate. They were not arbitrarily meted out. We must always remember that the measurement for doctrine and theological thought in their arena of debate was the Apostolic writings (the New Testament in whole or part). Some of the positions Pelagius took cannot be substantiated adequately with the Bible. Therefore, Augustine prevailed (right or wrong) over Pelagius before the Church authorities in their long running argument.
Rich, I have commented before that choosing between Pelagius and Augustine would be difficult because I don't see the totality of either man's theology reflected consistently in scripture. Take the ten points below that describes some of the theology of Pelagius...I will answer each with a true or false. My assessment of each statement is simply based on what I have read in the Bible and can be contextually substantiated...Does that mean I'm right and their wrong? Who knows...?
1. Pelagius stressed the essential goodness of human nature
False
2. and freedom of the human will.
True
3. He rejected the idea that sin exists because of human weakness,
False
4. that God made human beings free to choose between good and evil,
True
5. that sin is a voluntary act committed by a person against God's law.
True
6. Celestius, his follower, denied the doctrine of original sin
False
7. and the necessity of infant baptism.
True
8. Pelagius further taught that Adam's fall condemned man by a bad example,
False
9. that Grace was helpful but not essential.
Real False
10. Christ's good example offered humanity a path to salvation, not through sacrifice but free will.
False
I agree with four out of ten points. You'll see I agree more with Augustine...
1. Augustine, in direct contrast, held that all humans are profoundly tainted by original sin,
True
2. that the baptized Christian is still an invalid in need of church aid,
True for many
3. that human will is caught in a dark internal labyrinth of untamable compulsions,
True for many
4. that no one is strong enough to save himself without God's Grace
True
5. and the help of the Church.
False with some caveats
6. Man is too depraved to be worthy of God except through His grace.
True
7. In summary, for him there is only one story; creation, fall, and redemption
Sort of True
8. and only two players, God and humanity.
False
I fully agree with Stephen Mitchell when he wrote, "...no one was beyond redemption. Jesus is the channel for God's Grace, God engaged in the world, The Wayshower, a redeemer of all transgressions and transgressors."
Bishop Spong wrote, "It should not surprise us, therefore, to find in Christian history a pattern of constant and consistent victimization. Victimized people must always have a victim onto whom their defined negativity can be transferred. That is why the Christian Church throughout its history has always had a "designated victim" who could be publically persecuted, some one to absorb the self hatred this understanding of God forced us to bear."
I agree with Bishop Spong in his observation of the sordid history speckled throughout the Church Age. However, I strongly disagree with the good Bishop in his assessment of why this has occurred. He is overlooking the critically vital nature of the authority of Jesus in all things. This is a basic foundational Christian premise that is always compromised whenever injustice happens under the Christian banner.
Bad things happen every time people try to force Christianity onto others and especially when they do so through governmental authority. We have to look no further than the Reformation. The Catholic Church persecuted the Reformers and then Calvin, once he gained control of Genevea, led persecution against reformed dissenters of his brand of faith. This is always the end result whenever Jesus's rightful place of rule in our hearts, homes and churches is usurped by humans. I believe the performance and image of Christianity only shines brightly to the degree that His followers submit to Him in all things. In my opinion, Jesus has never asked anyone to victimize another human. That idea totally flies in the face of humility that is commanded of Christians.
Stephen Mitchell wrote, "What is the gospel according to Jesus? Simply this: that the love we all long for in our innermost heart
is already present, beyond longing." He emphasizes that "Like all great spiritual Masters, Jesus taught one thing only: presence...."
I think this statement falls way short of encapsulating, summarizing, or expressing the essence of the Gospel of Jesus. He should consider John 3:16.
Rich, I offer below a true false assessment of the statements in your concluding paragraph. Please note that I agree more with your statements than Pelagius or Augustine.
Rich wrote, "Hence a new, human, celebratory theology...
1. one that stresses the essential goodness of God
True
2. and his creations, we humans,
False with some truth
3. that recognizes that human free will and full responsibility for the consequences for our actions are of equal necessity;
True
4. one that sees and celebrates the equality of all human beings,
True
5. in a universe that is intimately interconnected, interactive and interdependent.
True
6. A fully socially responsible theology for the modern age.
True
Below is a text that Paul wrote that succinctly summarizes his position on much of the doctrinal issues discussed above.
The following twenty statements about Jesus are taken directly from Colossians 1:15-23...I will say here that I answer "true" to each one.
1. He is the image of the invisible God,
2. the firstborn over all creation.
3. For by him all things were created:
4. things in heaven and on earth,
5. visible and invisible,
6. whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.
7. He is before all things,
8. and in him all things hold together.
9. And he is the head of the body, the church;
10. he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead,
11. so that in everything he might have the supremacy.
12. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him,
13. and through him to reconcile to himself all things,
14. whether things on earth or things in heaven,
15. by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
16. Once you were alienated from God
17. and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior.
18. But now he has reconciled you by Christ's physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation—
19. if you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the gospel.
20. This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant.
I believe these statements to be true. Therefore, in my estimation, Jesus is much more than just a good example, a wise prophet, or a Wayshower. He is the King of Kings, exalted above all others and the Savior for all who will receive Him.
Pelagius or Augustine?
Gary,
For me choosing Pelagius is a tough choice, afterall Pelagius was an extreme ascetic, one who engaged in severe physical and psychological denials. Some even attribute him with the beginnings of Christian monasticism. Yet his belief in man's basic good moral nature and man's free will ability to voluntarily choose Christian asceticim as a path to achieve spiritual enlightenment, fits better with my world view. While I have not chosen the path of the ascetic, I do believe humankind has been endowed by Our Creator with free will, the ability to choose wisely. Directly complementary with and in complete balance to free will is the necessity to understand and accept that we are also fully responsible for the consequences of our free willed actions.
As a Deist Christian I believe Our Creator endowed us with powers of both the head, an intellect, and the heart, an intuition. Both powers must be employed in a balanced and fair manner. Sometimes we can reason out the solution to a challenge, move with conviction that what we have decided is based on sound reasonable conclusions. Other times we must move on faith alone, responding to a deep inner "knowing" that our actions are the best for us to meet the challenge we are faced with.
As also a man of science I see a universe that functions beautifully, intimately interconnected, interactive and interdependent. I just love the naturalist John Muir's quote, "When one tugs at a single thing in nature, he finds it attached to the rest of the world." Raised in rural central NY state, I spent many happy hours wandering the woods, swamps and fields surrounding my home. In unhappy times I found this to be my place of refuge. I discovered first hand the cycles of nature, and later, the cycles of human history. Like many scientists I have come to conclude that the universe functions just too well not for there to be an intelligent actor behind, or process underlying, it. Thus I see the wisdom of Genesis confirmed by science, just not in the 6,000 year time frame the Creationist espouse. I believe not in intelligent design, rather intelligent process.
As science tells us, energy can not either be created or destroyed. Thus it is eternal. It is this vast unseen and still somewhat unknown energy that connects all, is all. To me, this can be called God. I see the universe as a vast sea that swims in itself, an infinite web of energy that weaves itself. If a person needs to feel there is a Master Weaver so be it. I find it comforting to do so. I just do not call it God, rather Our Creator as I believe Our Creator is neither male nor female, but rather, by the necessity of creation, both.
To me this fundamental interconnectedness explains why the Golden Rule is so prevailent in the world's major religions, "Treat others as you would have them treat you" which is also known as The Ethic of Reciprocity. An ethical humanist can live an good benefical life simply by living from a position of enlightened self interest. Humans long ago learned the value of mutual help and assistance. We oblige ourselves one to another by of the necessity helping one another. If I help you I enhance my well being. If attack you I can expect to be attacked in return. Why would I want to do that? Seems kind of dumb to me, very counterproductive. If I learn to love you and you me, we both benefit greatly. Simple intellectual logic, great emotional comfort.
To me the original sin was not that we discovered we were naked, but that Adam learned that there were consequences to the actions he and Eve, took, that when Our Creator discovered that they had eaten the forbidden fruit was greatly disappointed and perhaps angered and said "OK you two, out!"
So we are given the ability to choose freely, as long as we understand and accept the consequences of our actions. This is from where I espouse a Theology of Social Responsiblity. To be responsible means we are response-able. As The Course in Miracles says we are free to "Chose again". Applying the ancient wisdom of the Golden Rule, the Ethic of Reciprocity, we are bound by necessity to actions of mutual aid. As the modern world, thru such divinely inspired human inventions as the world wide internet, has found, we are truly interconnected and interdependent.
Gary, here you and I differ fundamentally. I see Jesus as being Our Creators perfectly created example of how to live by the Golden Rule. By following his simple wisdom to love and trust my Creator and to love my fellow beings, realizing that I may not receive love from others, that I must trust that my Creator will protect me, I can live a full loving joyful existence. Amongst the many Master Teachers Our Creator has sent us I see Jesus, born the lowest of the low, the most humble of men, as being the most loving, demonstrating Our Creator's unconditional love for all of creation. Jesus would then, by his fundamental nature, be accepting of all persons, offering anyone in need of salvation from their errors of judgment or redemption from actions of error, hope for a renewed future. That's why I embrace Stephen Mitchell's work so much. Jesus was born so low as to be fully accepting of all human nature. We can by employing free will accept the salvation from error or redemption from actions offered by Jesus. To me, a Deist, I find this very comforting in those times when I must run on faith alone.
I bless you for the wonderful life of service you have been guided to live. While we may not agree on all things theological I do feel your love and care. I trust you feel mine.
Rich
Pelagius, Augustine, Jesus, and Paul
Rich, indeed your love and care comes through in everything I have read in your many posts. I agree with almost everything you have written in this reply. I especially agree with the idea of individual accountability and responsibility for our deeds both good and bad. I fully agree that everything is interconnected and integrated as an incredible and complex whole.
Like you, I wonder why folks read the creation account and then feel compelled to do some math to determine the age of the Earth. The Bible never asks anyone to do that. I also agree that God is infinitely above gender. I believe in the Golden Rule, the Ethic of Reciprocity and Responsibility . Here is a minor point of difference concerning the original sin...I don't think it had to do with nakedness as much as simple disobedience. Regardless, it caused a rift.
Rich, I am curious...where have you learned about the life or the words of Jesus? Do you primarily read the Bible for this information or do you rely more upon other resources? Why do you choose Jesus out of the other Wayshowers? How do you decide which passages of the New Testament are credible for citation or counsel in the realm of Spirit? Do the red letter words of Jesus offer more credibility than perhaps the writings of John or Paul? How about George or Ringo? Sorry, bad joke...couldn't resist.
I have shared before why I believe the Bible, especially the New Testament, is credible and close (not perfect or infallible) to what the original authors intended. I puzzle over what process of thought brings you to accept certain aspects of the accounts of Jesus and not others. What do you do with the claims Jesus made for Himself in the realm of identity and authority?
I pose the above questions to the Crossleft community at large...not just for Rich's consideration.
For me, it's not about choosing between Pelagius or Augustine's view of Christianity...it's simply about choosing the Jesus of the Bible. I have yet to read anyone else's version that even comes close.
Simplifying the Gospel
Gary,
My friend, (and what a true pleasure to refer to you as "my friend" it is,) it is truly heart warming to find that we agree on so many points. To answer your question re: what parts of the New Testiment I read it is primarily, but not exclusively, those parts that can be attributed soley to Jesus. I seek the human teacher, the learned Jewish Rabbi, the humble loving man, born, by design of Our Creator, to the lowest status of his contemporary society so as to be accepting of all persons regardless of their station in life from the poorest, the most outcast, and the wealthiest, all of whom are poor in spirit.
For me it is the message, not so much the messenger that is important, that gives me the best hope for a safe today and secure tommorrow. If I have learned anything about life in my nearly 68 years, it is that all creatures seek just two things, safety in the short term and security in the long. Adherance to the Golden Rule, living day to day by the Ethic of Reciprocity, following deep in my heart the admonition of Jesus to Love Our Creator with all my heart, my soul and my mind, to love my neighbor as myself, to love others as Jesus loved us, just works the best for me.
This is what draws me so powerfully to the work of Stephen Mitchell, Bishop Spong and Robert Funk and the Jesus Seminars. They cut thru the mythology that has grown up around Jesus, (the very human need of our early church fathers to embellish upon the life of Jesus), to
cut to the core of Jesus' teachings and present them in a context to which the modern day reader can readily relate. It is very powerful to read in Mitchell's book, in just 26 pages the core of Jesus' teachings as agreed upon by a whole host of learned Biblical scholars.
This is why I have been guided to read what is known of the life and teachings of such early church fathers as Origen, Pelagius and Augustine, to discover what may have been lost and what was saved. I strongly believe in the basic goodness of humankind. To me "evil" is simply the actions of those who have forgotten or never knew what the truth is, that Our Creator has given us the Garden of Eden, that we need one another, that there is enough for all, that we must be good self enlightened stewards of the garden.
I have this question for the Evangelical folk in our CrossLeft community. Do you agree with the primace of John Stott, principle author of the Lausanne Covenant, that the central message of the Bible is not the teachings of Jesus, but Jesus himself, the divine/human figure? If so, why? It may be here where I have a fundamental difference of opinion with our more theologically conservative fellows.
Agreeing to Agree...?
Rich, thanks for the interesting dialog...you are giving me a much better understanding of what you as a Deist believes. I appreciate the fact that apparently, we are not far apart on what constitutes some of the fundamentals of Christianity.
Rich wrote, "To answer your question re: what parts of the New Testament I read it is primarily, but not exclusively, those parts that can be attributed solely to Jesus."
I appreciate the epistles and trust them, but I believe every essential piece of information we need is found in the red letters of the Bible. Let's narrow our focus to the Gospels. So, what do you make of the claims Jesus made for Himself in the realm of authority and Identity?
Rich wrote, "This is what draws me so powerfully to the work of Stephen Mitchell, Bishop Spong and Robert Funk and the Jesus Seminars. They cut thru the mythology that has grown up around Jesus, (the very human need of our early church fathers to embellish upon the life of Jesus),"
Which early church fathers are you referring to and what are some of the myths they made up? How are we to discern, two thousand years removed, what is myth and what is incredible history? I think faith must factor in for us all at some point, don't you?
Rich wrote, "This is why I have been guided to read what is known of the life and teachings of such early church fathers as Origen, Pelagius and Augustine, to discover what may have been lost and what was saved."
Do you mean what may have been lost of their writings or instead, what may have been lost from the scriptures?
Rich, you offer wise counsel to us all when you write, "Adherance to the Golden Rule, living day to day by the Ethic of Reciprocity, following deep in my heart the admonition of Jesus to Love Our Creator with all my heart, my soul and my mind, to love my neighbor as myself, to love others as Jesus loved us, just works the best for me."
Rich wrote, "For me it is the message, not so much the messenger that is important, that gives me the best hope for a safe today and secure tomorrow."
Are you taking a different position than John Stott whose premise is, "... the central message of the Bible is not the teachings of Jesus, but Jesus himself, the divine/human figure?"
Rich, I agree with both you and John Stott. The Cohen brothers did a film called Oh Brother Where Art Thou? One of the characters was being forced to choose between one of the two men vying for leadership. He looked them both over and finally said, "I'm with you fellers!"
My goal as a minister is to do my best to present the message of the Messenger named Jesus. I have never heard a better message nor have I ever met any other Messenger. I have heard of others, but Jesus I have met. Introducing folks to Jesus is my greatest privilege. Presenting His message is my greatest honor.
More in Common Than Not
Rich, I just re-read your next to last paragraph in the reply...where is it we fundamentally disagree? I think differences emerge in attempting to flesh out this basic frame. I want to re-post that portion of your thoughts because I find it to be a succinctly passionate distillation of the Gospel.
Rich wrote, "Gary, here you and I differ fundamentally. I see Jesus as being Our Creators perfectly created example of how to live by the Golden Rule. By following his simple wisdom to love and trust my Creator and to love my fellow beings, realizing that I may not receive love from others, that I must trust that my Creator will protect me, I can live a full loving joyful existence. Amongst the many Master Teachers Our Creator has sent us I see Jesus, born the lowest of the low, the most humble of men, as being the most loving, demonstrating Our Creator's unconditional love for all of creation. Jesus would then, by his fundamental nature, be accepting of all persons, offering anyone in need of salvation from their errors of judgment or redemption from actions of error, hope for a renewed future. That's why I embrace Stephen Mitchell's work so much. Jesus was born so low as to be fully accepting of all human nature. We can by employing free will accept the salvation from error or redemption from actions offered by Jesus. To me, a Deist, I find this very comforting in those times when I must run on faith alone."
Thanks Rich...Me too.
Where do we disagree?
Well Gary, when I started to write this I had in mind your embrace of the concept of original sin; that man by nature is so depraved, so caught up in the dark material of untamable compulsions as to be unable to redeem himself, that humans need the Grace of God to be redeemed, that only Jesus is the way. Maybe I don't understand your concept of original sin. Augustine's concept, as I have heard it, thoroughly offends me. To me it is by employing my Creator given powers of free will and responsiblity, in the struggle to find the truth for myself that best serves me, that stays the longest with me, that guides me best. That is why I see Jesus as the Wayshower, by his by-divine-design born station in life, teachings and living example can I best find my way.
Let us explore the concept of original sin further. I see great damage having, and is still being, done by Augustine's concept. In further exploration, we may enlighten ourselves, and help others who read our exchanges, further.
May Peace be in our souls,
Rich