Program Seeks to Rehabilitate Sex Offenders

Click on “listen.”

 

Theological Skeleton (Part 3)

So how does omnipotent and benevolent God react to opposition if and when it occurs? There are, in my understanding, only two broad alternatives: either continue being benevolent or quit. There is no way to rule out the possibility that God just gets tired of the whole mess and withdraws benevolence. This is in fact what certain Hebrew traditions claim did happen in some instances, most notably the composite flood account in Genesis. But here omnipotence again plays a key role.

Our proposed omnipotent being, God, would have known of the possibility of opposition before creation. While it is possible for such a being to a bring forth distinct creation and only sustain as long as it is not too ‘frustrating,’ it is also possible that to choose to take the good with the bad and endure the potentially ‘frustrating’ consequences of such creation.

We can define this endurance of frustration with the term ‘long-suffering’ or ‘forbearance.’ This endurance is in effect God’s subjection of God’s own ‘comfort’ to the harming-to-God will(s) of creation. Such endurance is not motivated by fear or external oppression. If it is in fact done, it is done with the confidence of an omnipotent being. Thus the reaction of an omnipotent being, who chooses to remain benevolent to opposition, is confident endurance.

 

Theological Skeleton (Part 1)

Let’s start with omnipotence and benevolence. These are two characteristics of God that describe different categories. Omnipotence is the answer to the question what is God. Benevolence is the answer to the question who is God. I’m going to try to start with just these two assumptions and see if I can make a case for some striking similarities between the ethic taught by Jesus and what we should expect from this starting place.

But first I want to explore the idea that benevolence actually follows from omnipotence. An omnipotent being existing by itself has nothing interesting to do except share power. Any possible creation without the sharing of power is merely an extension of the omnipotent being. It is simply the omnipotent being essentially remaining in isolation. Omnipotence becomes trivial if the omnipotent being does not allow at least provisional power outside of its control. But if provisional power is taken away arbitrarily, omnipotence remains trivial and uninteresting. Only the allowance of at least potentially opposing power creates a meaningful ‘other,’ and only the creation of a meaningful other is anything more than an extension of the omnipotent being. So the omnipotent being is left with two basic choices: no creation (or a controlled creation) with no meaningful others or a creation of an other or others given the ability to act in opposition to the omnipotent being. This is acting in the interest of another rather than oneself. This is benevolence.

 

A Man from Lebanon: Nineteen Centuries Afterward

“Master, Master of Light,
Whose eye dwells in the seeking fingers of the blind,
You are still despised and mocked,
A man too weak and infirm to be God,
A God too much man to call forth adoration.
Their mass and their hymn,
Their sacrament and their rosary, are for their imprisoned self.
You are their yet distant self, their far-off cry, and their passion.

But Master, Sky-heart, Knight of our fairer dream,
You do still tread this day;
Nor bows nor spears shall stay your steps.
You walk through all our arrows.
You smile down upon us,
And though you are the youngest of us all
You father us all.

Poet, Singer, Great Heart,
May our God bless your name,
And the womb that held you, and the breasts that gave you milk.
And may God forgive us all.”

-Kahlil Gibran

 

Atonement?

Sometimes I think we might be better off without any atonement theory at all.

Some premises I think most mainstream Protestants would agree with: (1)Separation from God is the direct consequence not of God’s action but of (non-divine) human action; (2)reconciliation is ultimately initiated by God; (3) God’s love for humanity and his acts of reconciliation toward humanity are not motivated by human good deeds.

All this to say, it is we who create the need for reconciliation, and it is God who freely offers reconciliation. So if God is the kind of God who freely reconciles, how is he also the God who requires blood to atone for sin? Not so free after all. Sure, free for us, but somebody’s got to pay.

And if God is the kind of guy who would make the required payment for us to give us reconciliation, then why would he require payment at all in the first place?

As much as Protestants hate to admit it, the standard given in the gospels for entering the Kingdom is quite simple: merciful people in; unmerciful people out. If you are the kind of person who truly accepts God’s mercy (be it simply mercy or ‘mercy’ that someone paid for), then you must be the kind of person who not only receives it but also dispenses it. Check the red letters in your Bible, and see if I’m wrong. The contrapositive is also true: if you don’t dispense mercy, you have not accepted mercy. And if you will not receive mercy, it is your own standards that will judge you (Matt 7, Mark 4, & Luke 6).

The work of Christ in the passion and resurrection is, of course, central to Christianity. But if we read Paul as a follower of Jesus rather than his reinventor, those Pauline passages that are so often used in atonement theories take on a new shade of meaning. If we take Jesus’ words on the forgiveness seriously and give them primacy, mainstream atonement theories will be called into question.