Why Jesus?

Before beginning this week’s topic, I want to respond to a comment left on the blog by Steve. He wrote:

But my experience is that liberal Christians only want to hear about the experiences of other liberals or members of nonchristian faiths -- never from conservative members of their own faith.

Sadly, I agree with Steve in two ways. Much of liberal Christianity is not of the healthy variety, and, in my experience, deep listening to someone who sees things differently is almost non-existent in all quarters. For me, however, Healthy Liberal Christianity is a direction worth pursuing. Therefore, I recommend that we all engage in lots of respectful listening, where the objective is to gain a deeper understanding of how the other person came to see the reality in such a way, rather than judging their position or requiring agreement. Real listening must always be more about honest curiosity that looks for new information rather than being a test of someone’s orthodoxy (or heterodoxy, for that matter). So Steve, thanks for underscoring that important issue and for this opportunity to remind you that Healthy Liberal Christianity is something we strive for, not something we necessarily possess already.

As I prepare to go on to the issue of “Why Jesus?”, or asked differently, how we understand the question of “Atonement Theology”, it strikes me that this issue is a perfect occasion for learning about what makes respectful listening so difficult. Let me begin by articulating a couple of very different ways that people understand Jesus. This issue is a major fulcrum around which conservative and liberal Christian positions often revolve. Without noting the differences in the positions, any real dialogue is virtually impossible. So, here is my short (and therefore necessarily oversimplified) version.

From the more conservative perspective, humans were created as good (does that mean, obedient?) people. Disobedience (as described in the events in The Garden of Eden) destroyed the possibility of that life in Paradise After some 1200 years of unsuccessful human effort to use adherence to “The Law” as the means of salvation, God finally responded graciously to this impossible human task by becoming a human being in Jesus Christ. “The Son”, then, sacrificed himself on the cross to pay the ransom (to atone) for all human sin, so that God (The Father) would not be required (by the divine sense of justice) to punish (banish) humanity eternally. and the concomitant introduction of evil made salvation impossible to attain without divine intervention.

When Jesus was subsequently resurrected, his own eternally restored life became the sign that his sacrifice qualified as an acceptable payment for human sin. All we humans need do, then, is accept this “truth” and ask for Jesus to be our “personal Savior”. In this way, gracious salvation from eternal punishment is to be had simply for the asking. (My apologies for any inadequacy in this summary.)

For many liberal Christians, atonement theology is replete with stumbling blocks. Let me summarize some of them with these three questions:

1. Is obedience the primary way to measure a proper relationship with God?
2. Is God really that mean (some would say, abusive) that Jesus must sacrifice his own life to protect us from God’s wrath?
3. If God’s incarnation in Jesus Christ is not for the purposes of atonement, then what, if anything, might it mean?

The problem with the liberal perspective is that so many people have either not made the effort to articulate a different Christology, or, armed with the best of intentions, they haven’t known where to begin. So the two default positions become atonement theology on the one hand or vague comments about the impossibility of resurrection or the infinite kindness of God on the other.

For liberal Christianity to be healthy, we have to work a lot harder to articulate an alternate vision. This is where healthy and respectful listening is so valuable. First of all, when you listen to someone else’s carefully constructed position, and ask them questions about how they got there, you benefit from hearing some important foundational ways of looking at things. At the same time, you are encouraged to think more deeply and clearly about your own foundational positions. It is never enough to say, “I don’t agree with you,” without getting down to the level where your axiomatic beliefs differ from the other. Then it truly becomes a matter of faith – that is to say, a matter of your personal fundamentals.

When liberals and conservatives do the hard work of excavating the foundations of their opinions, then their real differences come to light. Now, there is another possible outcome. Sometimes, when we look at the level of fundamentals, we discover that we are coming to conclusions based on axiomatic positions that we do not even believe. And our deep and respectful listening to one another then might affect life changing modifications in our positions.

You see, when you listen deeply, you can never guarantee how you will be changed by the experience. Perhaps that’s why people resist listening in that way. To paraphrase a common saying: “My mind’s made up, don’t confuse me with any deep truth that will cause me to change how I see things.” If we are to be healthy liberal (or conservative) Christians, then we must take the risk of listening to one another.

We may learn more about how to evaluate the health of human/divine relationships. We may learn more about the varied images of God we carry. And we may even learn more about why Jesus came.

Wayne

"Our Faith is 2000 years old, our thinking is not." United Church of Christ