Debi loves quilting and specializes in making “baby quilts”. When friends (and now the children of friends) have babies, Debi will find out as much as she can about the expectant parent’s colors and decorating tastes and she then makes a quilt for their infant. It can be a powerful gift as evidenced by a couple of our own kids who still sleep with the now tattered remnants of their own baby quilts.
Recently, Debi was making a quilt for an expectant mother. As she was working on the quilt, God said to her, “Stop making this quilt and make a quilt for Ginger.”
Now Ginger is the daughter of one of Debi’s college roommates – a roommate who became a lifelong friend. Ginger has wanted children for some time but has been struggling with fertility issues.
Knowing this, Debi did what I would have done with this word from God – she ignored it. After all, on a human level, this seems cruel! God could not possibly be telling her to make a quilt for a young woman who was battling depression and despair over her inability to conceive.
But this word from God persisted and one day God said, “Make a quilt for Ginger and tell her that it is a hope quilt.”
So Debi suspended work on the quilt she had begun and made one for Ginger and mailed it to her. I’ll let Ginger pick up the story from there as told in an email that she sent to Debi and a group of friends a few days after receiving the quilt:
“We are writing with some amazing news. On Friday, we got a call from our lawyer letting us know that we had been matched with a birth mother!!! We got to talk to her later that night on the phone, and she asked us if we would adopt the baby...of course we were thrilled to say YES!
The incredible story of this baby started in earnest the day before we got the call. Thursday afternoon we had a package on our front porch from a dear family friend who makes quilts for her friends’ babies and grandbabies. I was surprised when I saw her name on the package as we don't usually get mail from her. In the top of the package was a card that read, in part: ‘While minding my own business, God told me to make this quilt for your first baby. Since I do not often hear from God like this I did not start right away. He spoke again - this time I did what He told me to do. He said this is to be your ‘'hope quilt.'’ She then mentioned her own fertility struggles years ago before starting a family. She ended the card by saying, ‘What I learned is that God is faithful even though I am not and that His grace is enough for me...I believe that you will find hope now and a little one soon.’ Under the tissue paper was a soft, wonderful quilt for our little one.
I wept after reading half of the first sentence...and continued weeping tears of joy for about two hours after. Somehow, in that first sentence, it felt like something pierced right through to my heart. I cried in complete awe at the love of God. Who is this God that loves us enough to have asked this woman miles away from us to make a quilt for our baby? It also brought me back to the center of the Reality that He is so far ahead of us here...this is not all up to us. He knows who our baby is and when they will be born. I have never felt so loved by God. Our dear friend who sent this blanket truly stepped out in faith...I mean, the prospect of making and sending a baby quilt to a couple who's struggled with fertility issues for some time and has no baby in sight is not exactly an appealing one, especially for someone who has been down that road and knows how painful it is … I will never forget those moments and hours of feeling so overwhelmed by the love of God...for us and for our baby. It's amazing!
22 hours after receiving our hope quilt, I got a call from the law firm saying we'd been chosen by a birth mom! Our hearts were prepared to receive that news in SUCH a different way because of that amazing gift the day before. We are keenly aware of how much the Lord loves us and has a plan for us and our family. Regardless of what happens, we know this to be true.”
I’m reading between the lines a bit but it sure seems like Ginger had been caught up (understandably) in the struggle that usually accompanies trauma and suffering. Where is God? Has he abandoned me? Is he angry with me? Does he even exist? What have I done to deserve this? Why is He not coming through for me when what I want is such a good and normal thing? And, of course, when you are in your 20s and married, a lot of your friends are in their 20s and married and they all seem to be getting pregnant by just looking cross-eyed at each other. These circumstances conspire to exacerbate the problem even further. In addition, the Evil One is always there and ready to add fuel to the fire of doubt and despair created by these questions and circumstances.
What Ginger needed was a word from God – not just a biblical principle about God’s love or sovereignty – but an actual communication from God related to what she was going through. She needed the kind of thing you find all through the Bible where God speaks to people about the circumstances of their lives. How many stories can you think of off the top of your head where God sends messages to barren women about children?
If you’re a frequent reader of this blog, you know that this “hearing from God” experience is a very new thing for me and Debi. We spent 30+ years of our Christian lives as de-facto naturalists. We said we believed in the supernatural but tended to be suspicious of any actual manifestation of it. Thankfully, experiences like the one with Ginger and the quilt are changing our perspective. God still wants to speak to us about the circumstances of our lives just like we see throughout the biblical record.
A postscript --
I’m painfully aware that other women who are struggling with fertility issues might read this and find it massively depressing. Why has God come through for Ginger and not for you? Debi and I know from personal experience how painful it is to want children while being surrounded by those who are accomplishing this task easily. At your best, you’re not unhappy for them even though it does make you more miserable – at your worst, you resent their “success”.
Well I certainly don’t want this story to add to peoples’ pain. While I’m sure God always wants to speak to us in our struggles, I’m also convinced that any kind of pain and suffering and evil involves the bigger question of why these things even exist in a world created by a good and all-powerful God. Addressing the question of suffering is certainly beyond the scope of this current posting. However, if you’ve been the victim of evil or suffering, I can recommend a book by Greg Boyd entitled Is God to Blame? Moving Beyond Pat Answers to the Problem of Evil. I’ve found it immensely helpful in my own struggles with this issue.
Monday, August 10, 2009
Friday, May 15, 2009
Creation Care and Evangelical Christians
Evangelical Christians often tend to be followers of cultural trends rather than shapers of them. This charge has been leveled frequently against believers with conservative political views but our friends on the evangelical left are not immune to this phenomenon.
An excellent example is the headlong rush of many evangelicals to embrace “creation care” which turns out to be the secular environmentalist agenda dressed up in religious garb.
Here is a quote from Ron Sider, well-known evangelical Christian ethicist, regarding the environment:
“Our present behavior threatens the well-being of the entire planet. We are destroying our air, forests, land, and water so rapidly that, unless we change, our grandchildren and their grandchildren will face disastrous problems.We pollute our air, contribute to global warming (climate change), exhaust our supplies of freshwater, overfish our seas, and destroy precious topsoil, forests, and unique species lovingly shaped by the Creator. In many countries, chemicals, pesticides, oil spills, and industrial emissions degrade air, water, and soil."
A similar view is expressed by Daniel Migliore, the Charles Hodge Professor of Systematic Theology at Princeton Seminary:
“… every exposition of the doctrine of God as creator and of the world as God's good creation is profoundly challenged by the ecological crisis. Evidence mounts almost daily that the crisis is of daunting proportions. The earth and the network of life that it sustains are in peril. In the view of some experts, the damage to the environment is already severe and in some cases perhaps irreversible. Nuclear accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl; the frequent reports of oil spills and leaking chemical dump sites; the ominous warming of the earth and increased acidity of rain; the harm done to the ozone layer; the reckless pollution of air, streams, and fields; the decimation of the great rain forests of the earth; the loss of thousands of species of life; the development and use of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons — these are but some of the items in the now familiar litany of the degradation of the earth and the growing threat to all its inhabitants.” (Emphasis added)
But let’s contrast these views with a dissenting point of view from a secular European atheist and college professor at the University of Copenhagen, Bjorn Lomborg, who writes:
“We are all familiar with the Litany: the environment is in poor shape here on Earth." Our resources are running out. The population is ever growing, leaving less and less to eat. The air and the water are becoming ever more polluted. The planet's species are becoming extinct is vast numbers -we kill off more than 40,000 each year. The forests are disappearing, fish stocks are collapsing and the coral reefs are dying. We are defiling our Earth, the fertile topsoil is disappearing, we are paving over nature, destroying the wilderness, decimating the biosphere, and will end up killing ourselves in the process. The world's ecosystem is breaking down. We are fast approaching the absolute limit of viability, and the limits of growth are becoming apparent.We know the Litany and have heard it so often that yet another repetition is, well, almost reassuring. There is just one problem: it does not seem to be backed up by the available evidence.” (Emphasis added)
I find it fascinating that Sider and Migliore can recite the “litany” so accurately. Migliore even uses the word “litany” in his description of the desperate condition of the environment! This is profound testimony to the power of a propaganda machine that churns out an environmentalist orthodoxy which goes unquestioned and from which no dissent is tolerated.
Equally telling is the disturbing fact that Sider and Migliore don’t provide a single footnoted reference to back up their assertions about the disastrous state of the environment. Yet this allegedly looming catastrophe is the departure point for their views on Christian obligations related to the care of the creation. Sider’s book is heavily footnoted with no other chapter having fewer than 29 footnotes. Yet his “Creation Care” chapter has only three footnotes and two of them are Sider quoting himself from other books he has written!
In contrast, Lomborg heavily documents his contention that the Litany is not true. His book is over 800 pages and has 2,709 footnotes. Almost all of his conclusions are drawn from the analysis of reports issued by the United Nations, not exactly a conservative, right-wing think tank.
These issues are a matter of life and death. Sider and Migliore contend that "creation care" is part of the gospel's mandate and that the gospel shows special concern for the hungry and the poor and the marginalized. In fact, this concern is central in both of their theologies. I believe that both men are completely sincere in their concern.
Yet Lomborg argues, persuasively I believe, that basing environmental, economic and political decisions on the mirage of the Litany will actually end up hurting the hungry and the poor disproportionately. He points out ways that the hungry and the poor have already been hurt by misguided environmental policies in the developed world. For example, the banning of DDT, which was demanded with an almost religiously moral fervor by secular Western environmentalists, has actually led to a massive increase in death from malaria in developing nations.
I do not believe that there will not be an increase in justice or a decrease in poverty if we follow the secular Western environmentalist agenda. We need to have accurate facts before we start moralizing and pontificating. Moral mandates applied to bad facts will produce injustice just as surely as the most blatantly immoral acts like robbery, rape and murder.
And a good place to start getting some perspective on environmental issues and their interplay with pressing matters like hunger, disease, oppression and death is at The Copenhagen Consensus web site. This small European think-tank, composed of imminent scholars from around the world, provides an alternative viewpoint to the one that Sider and Migliore have absorbed from the popular culture.
The Copenhagen Consensus proposals are based on the reality that the one resource that is always in shortest supply is money. Thus, where we spend money becomes vitally important – spending money on popular agendas that do little good means that money is not available for other projects that would do more good. As they say on their web site,
"... when financial resources are limited, it is necessary to prioritize the effort. Every day, policymakers and business leaders at all levels prioritize by investing in one project instead of another. However, instead of being based on facts, science, and calculations, many vital decisions are based on political motives or even the possibility of media coverage."
We desperately need a more informed discussion of the facts before we start adopting policies that might actually have disastrous unintended consequences for the poor and the disadvantaged that we claim we to want to help. Jesus warned us that it is always possible that we are doing harm when we think that we are serving God (John 16:2). We should take that warning to heart.
An excellent example is the headlong rush of many evangelicals to embrace “creation care” which turns out to be the secular environmentalist agenda dressed up in religious garb.
Here is a quote from Ron Sider, well-known evangelical Christian ethicist, regarding the environment:
“Our present behavior threatens the well-being of the entire planet. We are destroying our air, forests, land, and water so rapidly that, unless we change, our grandchildren and their grandchildren will face disastrous problems.We pollute our air, contribute to global warming (climate change), exhaust our supplies of freshwater, overfish our seas, and destroy precious topsoil, forests, and unique species lovingly shaped by the Creator. In many countries, chemicals, pesticides, oil spills, and industrial emissions degrade air, water, and soil."
A similar view is expressed by Daniel Migliore, the Charles Hodge Professor of Systematic Theology at Princeton Seminary:
“… every exposition of the doctrine of God as creator and of the world as God's good creation is profoundly challenged by the ecological crisis. Evidence mounts almost daily that the crisis is of daunting proportions. The earth and the network of life that it sustains are in peril. In the view of some experts, the damage to the environment is already severe and in some cases perhaps irreversible. Nuclear accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl; the frequent reports of oil spills and leaking chemical dump sites; the ominous warming of the earth and increased acidity of rain; the harm done to the ozone layer; the reckless pollution of air, streams, and fields; the decimation of the great rain forests of the earth; the loss of thousands of species of life; the development and use of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons — these are but some of the items in the now familiar litany of the degradation of the earth and the growing threat to all its inhabitants.” (Emphasis added)
But let’s contrast these views with a dissenting point of view from a secular European atheist and college professor at the University of Copenhagen, Bjorn Lomborg, who writes:
“We are all familiar with the Litany: the environment is in poor shape here on Earth." Our resources are running out. The population is ever growing, leaving less and less to eat. The air and the water are becoming ever more polluted. The planet's species are becoming extinct is vast numbers -we kill off more than 40,000 each year. The forests are disappearing, fish stocks are collapsing and the coral reefs are dying. We are defiling our Earth, the fertile topsoil is disappearing, we are paving over nature, destroying the wilderness, decimating the biosphere, and will end up killing ourselves in the process. The world's ecosystem is breaking down. We are fast approaching the absolute limit of viability, and the limits of growth are becoming apparent.We know the Litany and have heard it so often that yet another repetition is, well, almost reassuring. There is just one problem: it does not seem to be backed up by the available evidence.” (Emphasis added)
I find it fascinating that Sider and Migliore can recite the “litany” so accurately. Migliore even uses the word “litany” in his description of the desperate condition of the environment! This is profound testimony to the power of a propaganda machine that churns out an environmentalist orthodoxy which goes unquestioned and from which no dissent is tolerated.
Equally telling is the disturbing fact that Sider and Migliore don’t provide a single footnoted reference to back up their assertions about the disastrous state of the environment. Yet this allegedly looming catastrophe is the departure point for their views on Christian obligations related to the care of the creation. Sider’s book is heavily footnoted with no other chapter having fewer than 29 footnotes. Yet his “Creation Care” chapter has only three footnotes and two of them are Sider quoting himself from other books he has written!
In contrast, Lomborg heavily documents his contention that the Litany is not true. His book is over 800 pages and has 2,709 footnotes. Almost all of his conclusions are drawn from the analysis of reports issued by the United Nations, not exactly a conservative, right-wing think tank.
These issues are a matter of life and death. Sider and Migliore contend that "creation care" is part of the gospel's mandate and that the gospel shows special concern for the hungry and the poor and the marginalized. In fact, this concern is central in both of their theologies. I believe that both men are completely sincere in their concern.
Yet Lomborg argues, persuasively I believe, that basing environmental, economic and political decisions on the mirage of the Litany will actually end up hurting the hungry and the poor disproportionately. He points out ways that the hungry and the poor have already been hurt by misguided environmental policies in the developed world. For example, the banning of DDT, which was demanded with an almost religiously moral fervor by secular Western environmentalists, has actually led to a massive increase in death from malaria in developing nations.
I do not believe that there will not be an increase in justice or a decrease in poverty if we follow the secular Western environmentalist agenda. We need to have accurate facts before we start moralizing and pontificating. Moral mandates applied to bad facts will produce injustice just as surely as the most blatantly immoral acts like robbery, rape and murder.
And a good place to start getting some perspective on environmental issues and their interplay with pressing matters like hunger, disease, oppression and death is at The Copenhagen Consensus web site. This small European think-tank, composed of imminent scholars from around the world, provides an alternative viewpoint to the one that Sider and Migliore have absorbed from the popular culture.
The Copenhagen Consensus proposals are based on the reality that the one resource that is always in shortest supply is money. Thus, where we spend money becomes vitally important – spending money on popular agendas that do little good means that money is not available for other projects that would do more good. As they say on their web site,
"... when financial resources are limited, it is necessary to prioritize the effort. Every day, policymakers and business leaders at all levels prioritize by investing in one project instead of another. However, instead of being based on facts, science, and calculations, many vital decisions are based on political motives or even the possibility of media coverage."
We desperately need a more informed discussion of the facts before we start adopting policies that might actually have disastrous unintended consequences for the poor and the disadvantaged that we claim we to want to help. Jesus warned us that it is always possible that we are doing harm when we think that we are serving God (John 16:2). We should take that warning to heart.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Economic Woes and My Texifornian Roots
Some snippet that I caught on the news recently got me thinking about red states and blue states – the states that tend to vote for Republicans and Democrats respectively.
Somewhere in my aging brain cells, I remember learning that one of the arguments for strong state governments with a weak federal system is that the states provide laboratories for public policy. States can adopt different polices in regards to minimum wages and health care and tax structure and social services. We then have a chance to see which policies are most effective in promoting the general welfare. Even more importantly, the impacts from bad public policies that end up hurting people are limited in their extent. Less successful states can learn from more successful states and the general welfare is promoted.
In this state of mind, I started thinking about California and Texas. I’m a native son of the former and an adopted son of the latter. By the time I had graduated from college, I had spent just about equal time living in both states – 12 years in CA and 10 years in TX. My dad was a native Californian and my mom was a native Texan. So I’m a Calixan or, if you’re a feminist, I’m a Texifornian. I love both states.
Both states are large in terms of geography and population. Both are rich in oil and other natural resources. Both have long borders with Mexico and face similar immigration issues. Both states are proud of their social/cultural traditions and each is somewhat dismissive of the stereotypical image of the other.
In contrast, both states are in drastically different economic situations at the moment. California is a mess with a $40 billion shortfall on a $100 billion budget. Texas is running a surplus. California is losing jobs while Texas is adding them. California has a total state and local tax burden at $5,028 per capita while the comparable tax burden in Texas is $3,580 per person (10.5% of per capita income in California and 8.4% of per capita income in Texas putting the states as the 6th highest versus the 7th lowest of the 50 states).
I started looking on the internet and there is a lot of discussion devoted to red state versus blue state differences. The gist of it all is that red states tend to be doing better than blue states on a whole host of measures.
Here is an interesting one – red state residents give a higher percentage of their per capita income to charity. Twenty eight of the twenty nine most generous states voted for Bush in 2004 while 17 of the 21 least generous voted for Kerry. Texas ranks 22nd in per capita income but has the 4th highest per capita giving. The numbers are almost the exact opposite in California. It has the 6th highest per capita income but ranks 19th in terms of per capita giving.
If state governments were a for-profit business, everyone would be studying what is going on in Texas and figuring out how to apply it to their states. Texas would be holding seminars and other states would be paying big bucks to come and learn how to do it right.
But just the opposite is happening. At the federal level, we are adopting public policies that are much closer to those in California than those in Texas.
Even worse, federal money is going to be spent to bail out the failing blue states. It’s a kind of weird co-dependency where the responsible adults keep coming to the rescue of the irresponsible teenagers. It is the exact opposite of what the founders envisioned.
(By the way, is the Obama administration going to advocate all kinds of conditions on the receipt of “bailout” money by these economically troubled states like he is proposing for private businesses that receives federal money? If he wants to limit CEO pay in the private sector to 10% of what is typical, should all governors and state legislators be required to reduce their pay to 10% of normal? Shouldn’t these states be required to follow more productive policies like drilling for oil off the coast of California instead of expecting other states to pay for their high-brow environmental tastes?)
When I have a chance to read more on the red state/blue state issue, I’m sure that there will be layers of complexity and people will argue that the differences between blue and red states are due to all sorts of factors unrelated to political philosophy. Feel free to weigh in if you know of some of these kinds of issues.
In the meantime and for reasons cited above, I’m not a big fan of the various stimulus bills and bailouts. I think it is just going to enable the irresponsible states to continue their irresponsibility. Instead of learning from successful states, we are going to reward the unsuccessful ones. It’s all backwards and the solution to just about every problem I can think of is to do the exact opposite of what we are doing. It’s time to start seeing red and avoiding the blues.
Somewhere in my aging brain cells, I remember learning that one of the arguments for strong state governments with a weak federal system is that the states provide laboratories for public policy. States can adopt different polices in regards to minimum wages and health care and tax structure and social services. We then have a chance to see which policies are most effective in promoting the general welfare. Even more importantly, the impacts from bad public policies that end up hurting people are limited in their extent. Less successful states can learn from more successful states and the general welfare is promoted.
In this state of mind, I started thinking about California and Texas. I’m a native son of the former and an adopted son of the latter. By the time I had graduated from college, I had spent just about equal time living in both states – 12 years in CA and 10 years in TX. My dad was a native Californian and my mom was a native Texan. So I’m a Calixan or, if you’re a feminist, I’m a Texifornian. I love both states.
Both states are large in terms of geography and population. Both are rich in oil and other natural resources. Both have long borders with Mexico and face similar immigration issues. Both states are proud of their social/cultural traditions and each is somewhat dismissive of the stereotypical image of the other.
In contrast, both states are in drastically different economic situations at the moment. California is a mess with a $40 billion shortfall on a $100 billion budget. Texas is running a surplus. California is losing jobs while Texas is adding them. California has a total state and local tax burden at $5,028 per capita while the comparable tax burden in Texas is $3,580 per person (10.5% of per capita income in California and 8.4% of per capita income in Texas putting the states as the 6th highest versus the 7th lowest of the 50 states).
I started looking on the internet and there is a lot of discussion devoted to red state versus blue state differences. The gist of it all is that red states tend to be doing better than blue states on a whole host of measures.
Here is an interesting one – red state residents give a higher percentage of their per capita income to charity. Twenty eight of the twenty nine most generous states voted for Bush in 2004 while 17 of the 21 least generous voted for Kerry. Texas ranks 22nd in per capita income but has the 4th highest per capita giving. The numbers are almost the exact opposite in California. It has the 6th highest per capita income but ranks 19th in terms of per capita giving.
If state governments were a for-profit business, everyone would be studying what is going on in Texas and figuring out how to apply it to their states. Texas would be holding seminars and other states would be paying big bucks to come and learn how to do it right.
But just the opposite is happening. At the federal level, we are adopting public policies that are much closer to those in California than those in Texas.
Even worse, federal money is going to be spent to bail out the failing blue states. It’s a kind of weird co-dependency where the responsible adults keep coming to the rescue of the irresponsible teenagers. It is the exact opposite of what the founders envisioned.
(By the way, is the Obama administration going to advocate all kinds of conditions on the receipt of “bailout” money by these economically troubled states like he is proposing for private businesses that receives federal money? If he wants to limit CEO pay in the private sector to 10% of what is typical, should all governors and state legislators be required to reduce their pay to 10% of normal? Shouldn’t these states be required to follow more productive policies like drilling for oil off the coast of California instead of expecting other states to pay for their high-brow environmental tastes?)
When I have a chance to read more on the red state/blue state issue, I’m sure that there will be layers of complexity and people will argue that the differences between blue and red states are due to all sorts of factors unrelated to political philosophy. Feel free to weigh in if you know of some of these kinds of issues.
In the meantime and for reasons cited above, I’m not a big fan of the various stimulus bills and bailouts. I think it is just going to enable the irresponsible states to continue their irresponsibility. Instead of learning from successful states, we are going to reward the unsuccessful ones. It’s all backwards and the solution to just about every problem I can think of is to do the exact opposite of what we are doing. It’s time to start seeing red and avoiding the blues.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Atonement - Part 3
In Part 1 of of a multi-part blog, we looked at the common view of the atonement that is ubiquitous in Evangelical circles. In Part 2, we considered an alternative understanding of the atonement known as the Christus Victor view – a view that was common in the church for the first thousand years of its existence. In this third installment, we will look at a contemporary presentation of the Christus Victor view in fictional literature.
Christus Victor in the Chronicles of Narnia
As I mentioned at the end of Part 2, you may have encountered the Christus Victor view of the atonement before without recognizing it. It is presented by C. S. Lewis in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, one of the books in his wildly popular Chronicles of Narnia series.
If you’ve read the book, you recall that the Pevensie children (Peter, Susan, Edmund and Lucy) get into the land of Narnia which is part of a world in another universe. The children learn quickly that all is not well in Narnia. The White Witch (Satan) “has got all Narnia under her thumb” and has made it “always winter and never Christmas”. Edmund, out of pride and lust, betrays his brother and sisters to the White Witch and she takes Edmund captive. Some good creatures lead a successful battle to rescue Edmund by force from the Witch as she is about to slit his throat. Edmund is brought to the great lion, Aslan (Christ). They have a long, private talk and Edmund is forgiven by Aslan and by his brother and sisters. But we soon learn that the consequences of Edmund’s traitorous act may not be so easily undone:
“You have a traitor there, Aslan,” said the Witch. Of course everyone present knew that she meant Edmund …
“Well,” said Aslan. “His offence was not against you.”
“Have you forgotten the Deep Magic?” asked the Witch.
“Let us say I have forgotten it,” answered Aslan gravely. “Tell us of this Deep Magic.”
“Tell you?” said the Witch, her voice growing suddenly shriller … You at least know the magic which the Emperor put into Narnia at the very beginning. You know that every traitor belongs to me as my lawful prey and that for every treachery I have a right to a kill.” …
“And so,” continued the Witch, “that human creature is mine. His life is forfeit to me. His blood is my property.”
“Come and take it then,” said the Bull with the man’s head in a great bellowing voice.
“Fool,” said the Witch with a savage smile that was almost a snarl, “do you really think your master can rob me of my right by mere force? … He knows that unless I have blood as the Law says all Narnia will be overturned and perish in fire and water.”
“It is very true,” said Aslan; “I do not deny it.”
“Oh, Aslan!” whispered Susan in the Lion’s ear, “can’t we – I mean, you won’t, will you? Can’t we do something about the Deep Magic? Isn’t there something you can work against it?”
“Work against the Emperor’s magic?” said Aslan turning to her with something like a frown on his face. And nobody ever made that suggestion to him again …
“Fall back, all of you,” said Aslan, “and I will talk to the Witch alone.”
They all obeyed…
At last they heard Aslan’s voice. You can all come back,” he said. “I have settled the matter. She has renounced the claim on your brother’s blood.” And all over the hill there was a noise as if everyone had been holding his breath and had now begun breathing again, and then a murmur of talk.
The relief at Aslan’s apparent rescue of Edmund is short lived. Susan and Lucy notice that Aslan’s mood has changed. Late at night as Aslan leaves camp, the girls follow him at a distance. When discovered, they join Aslan and comfort him without knowing the source of his sorrow. Aslan requires the girls to stop following him at a certain point and goes on alone to turn himself over to the Witch and her minions. The girls watch in horror as Aslan is bound, shaved, humiliated and tortured. As he lies on the giant stone table, we learn from the White Witch why she has renounced her claim on Edmund:
At last she [the White Witch] drew near. She stood by Aslan’s head … just before she gave the blow, she stooped down and said in a quivering voice, “And now, who has won? Fool, did you think that by all this you would save the human traitor? Now I will kill you instead of him as our pact was and so the Deep Magic will be appeased. But when you are dead what will prevent me from killing him as well? And who will take him out of my hand then? Understand that you have given me Narnia forever, you have lost your own life and you have not saved his. In that knowledge, despair and die.”
The children did not see the actual moment of the killing. They couldn’t bear to look and had covered their eyes.
The girls spend the rest of the night in grief. When the Witch leaves, they go to Aslan’s body and, with the help of some mice, they free him from the cords that bound him. They walk away from the Stone Table and we pick up the story at the first moment of sunrise:
The rising of the sun had made everything look so different – all the colours and shadows were changed – that for a moment they didn’t see the important thing. Then they did. The Stone Table was broken in two pieces by a great crack that ran down it from end to end; and there was no Aslan.
“Oh, oh, oh!” cried the two girls rushing back to the Table.
“Oh, it’s too bad,” sobbed Lucy; “they might have left the body alone.”
“Who’s done it?” cried Susan. “What does it mean? Is it more magic?”
“Yes!” said a great voice behind their backs. “It is more magic.” They looked round. There, shining in the sunrise, larger than they had seen him before, shaking his mane … stood Aslan himself.
“Oh, Aslan!’ cried both the children, staring up at him, almost as much frightened as they were glad.
“Aren’t you dead then, dear Aslan?” said Lucy.
“Not now,” said Aslan.
“You’re not – not a – ?” asked Susan in a shaky voice. She couldn’t bring herself to say the word ghost.
Aslan stooped his golden head and licked her forehead. The warmth of his breath and a rich sort of smell that seemed to hang about his hair came all over her.
“Do I look it?” he said.
“Oh, you’re real, you’re real! Oh, Aslan!” cried Lucy and both girls flung themselves upon him and covered him with kisses.
“But what does it all mean?” asked Susan when they were somewhat calmer.
“It means,” said Aslan, “that though the Witch knew the Deep Magic, there is a magic deeper still which she did not know. Her knowledge goes back only to the dawn of Time. But if she could have looked a little further back, into the stillness and the darkness before Time dawned, she would have read there a different incantation. She would have known that when a willing victim who had committed no treachery was killed in a traitor’s stead, the Table would crack and Death itself would start working backwards…”
Here is a rich and profoundly biblical understanding of the significance of the death of Christ. First of all, we learn early on that the White Witch has all Narnia under her thumb. This echoes the words of Paul who calls Satan the god of this world and John who tells us that the whole world lies in the power of the Evil One.
The Witch has brought on a perpetual winter – winter being a symbol of death. Edmund’s treachery brings him under her control and she has a right to kill him as a result. She rules over a kingdom of death just as Satan holds the power of death in this world (Hebrews 2:14-15).
In fact, think of any passage in Scripture that speaks about the death and resurrection of Christ and see if it does not fit with the Christus Victor view held by the early church and illustrated in Lewis’ fantasy.
Aslan gives himself as a ransom for Edmund (Matthew 20:28, Mark 10:45, I Timothy 2:5-6). The wages of Edmund’s sin is death (Romans 6:23). Death is a power that the White Witch holds over Edmund and Aslan breaks this power by his own death (Hebrews 2:14). Aslan was “bruised” for Edmund’s iniquity and “crushed” for Edmund’s transgressions and the consequences of Edmund’s transgression was laid on Aslan (Isaiah 53:5-6). Aslan removes the effects of Edmund’s sin by the sacrifice of himself (Hebrews 9:26). Without the shedding of blood, there would be no forgiveness for Edmund (Hebrews 9:22). Aslan redeems Edmund from the curse of the Deep Magic [law] (Galatians 3:13). Aslan, by his blood, releases Edmund from his sin (Revelation 1:5).
But what about justice? The common view of the atonement places a heavy emphasis on justice. It focuses on the fact that the penalty for sin is death and the penalty must be paid. A just God, it is claimed, must punish sin. He cannot let it go unpunished and be true to his character.
The passage cited most frequently that connects the atonement with justice is from chapter 3 of Romans. Romans 3:25-26 says that the redemption provided in the death of Christ was to demonstrate God’s righteousness “… because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.” Or, one might think also of I Peter 3:18 where we learn that Christ died as “the just for the unjust”.
The Christus Victor view also incorporates the concept of justice but it does so in a profoundly different way. In the common view of the atonement, God dies to be just towards himself; in the Christus Victor view, God dies so as not to be unjust towards Satan. Having created a world where disobedience would make people subject to death (Genesis 2:16-17) and to Satan’s power, God will not simply overrule this by force. He makes himself subject to his own rules and find another way to undo the effects of the Fall.
Lewis’ portrayal of the Christus Victor view captures these biblical themes. The Deep Magic, put into Narnia by the Emperor (God, the Father), gives the White Witch the right to kill Edmund. She has the power of death over him. This right cannot be undone by force as the Minotaur suggests. It would be unjust. And so Aslan dies – the just for the unjust. Aslan is just, and the justifier, of Edmund.
Of course, the Witch does not realize that her murder of Aslan will be her undoing. As Aslan later reveals, her knowledge goes back only to the dawn of time. She is a created being. She is not omniscient and does not know that there is a Deeper Magic – a higher law that will undo death itself if the Witch over-reaches and kills an innocent victim in the place of a guilty party.
This is profoundly biblical too. The gospel – the death and resurrection of Christ – is a mystery that was hidden by God for centuries (Romans 16:25-26, Ephesians 3:9-10, Colossians 1:26). For example, Romans 16:25-26 says that the gospel is a “… revelation of the mystery which has been kept secret for long ages past, but now is manifested … according to the commandment of the eternal God …”. Ephesians 3:9-10 sheds even more light on this matter when Paul reveals that God called him to “bring to light what is the administration of the mystery which for ages has been hidden in God who created all things; so that the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known through the church to the rulers and the authorities in the heavenly places.” Here, the secret wisdom of God [the Deeper Magic] that was hidden for ages has now been made known to the demonic powers (rulers and authorities in the heavenly places).
An even more explicit statement of this fact is found in I Corinthians 2:6-8 which says, “Yet we do speak wisdom among those who are mature; a wisdom, however, not of this age nor of the rulers of this age, who are passing away; but we speak God's wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God predestined before the ages to our glory; the wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood; for if they had understood it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory; …”. Here again, the rulers of this age (demonic powers – the whole world lies under their power, remember) brought about the death of Christ but would not have done so if they had understood that this would break the power of death that they hold over the world. The power of death that was brought into the world by Adam is undone by Christ (I Corinthians 15:21). Lewis' tale captures these rarely appreciated biblical themes. It makes me appreciate what Paul is getting at in these passages in Romans, I Corinthians, Ephesians and Colossians.
But doesn’t all this mean that God tricked Satan? Doesn’t it mean that God was somehow deceitful or even unjust? Wasn’t Aslan deceitful in how he treated the White Witch?
This objection to the Christus Victor view is part of the reason why it fell into disfavor. Early theologians sometimes used some very colorful analogies to try to explain the Christus Victor view. These overly fanciful stories may have caused later believers to miss the deep theological insights of the early church fathers.
But we should not be too quick to reject the Christus Victor view on the grounds of deceit. The concept of evil sowing the seeds of its own destruction is found in Scripture. Consider just three examples from Psalms and Proverbs:
Ps 7:15-16
He has dug a pit and hollowed it out,
And has fallen into the hole which he made.
His mischief will return upon his own head,
And his violence will descend upon his own pate.
Ps 57:6
They have prepared a net for my steps;
My soul is bowed down;
They dug a pit before me;
They themselves have fallen into the midst of it. Selah.
Prov 26:27
He who digs a pit will fall into it,
And he who rolls a stone, it will come back on him.
For my money, the Christus Victor view of the atonement does a much better job on encapsulating all that Scripture has to say about the significance of the Christ’s death and resurrection. It includes Satan in the picture while the common view leaves Satan out. This alone makes the Christus Victor view more comprehensive.
So much more needs to be said which is why there will be a Part 4 to this blog. In Part 4, we’ll consider some implications of the common view and the Christus Victor view of the atonement. I will give more reasons why the latter view is superior and I will explore how it can change our day-to-day lives in rich and significant ways.
Christus Victor in the Chronicles of Narnia
As I mentioned at the end of Part 2, you may have encountered the Christus Victor view of the atonement before without recognizing it. It is presented by C. S. Lewis in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, one of the books in his wildly popular Chronicles of Narnia series.
If you’ve read the book, you recall that the Pevensie children (Peter, Susan, Edmund and Lucy) get into the land of Narnia which is part of a world in another universe. The children learn quickly that all is not well in Narnia. The White Witch (Satan) “has got all Narnia under her thumb” and has made it “always winter and never Christmas”. Edmund, out of pride and lust, betrays his brother and sisters to the White Witch and she takes Edmund captive. Some good creatures lead a successful battle to rescue Edmund by force from the Witch as she is about to slit his throat. Edmund is brought to the great lion, Aslan (Christ). They have a long, private talk and Edmund is forgiven by Aslan and by his brother and sisters. But we soon learn that the consequences of Edmund’s traitorous act may not be so easily undone:
“You have a traitor there, Aslan,” said the Witch. Of course everyone present knew that she meant Edmund …
“Well,” said Aslan. “His offence was not against you.”
“Have you forgotten the Deep Magic?” asked the Witch.
“Let us say I have forgotten it,” answered Aslan gravely. “Tell us of this Deep Magic.”
“Tell you?” said the Witch, her voice growing suddenly shriller … You at least know the magic which the Emperor put into Narnia at the very beginning. You know that every traitor belongs to me as my lawful prey and that for every treachery I have a right to a kill.” …
“And so,” continued the Witch, “that human creature is mine. His life is forfeit to me. His blood is my property.”
“Come and take it then,” said the Bull with the man’s head in a great bellowing voice.
“Fool,” said the Witch with a savage smile that was almost a snarl, “do you really think your master can rob me of my right by mere force? … He knows that unless I have blood as the Law says all Narnia will be overturned and perish in fire and water.”
“It is very true,” said Aslan; “I do not deny it.”
“Oh, Aslan!” whispered Susan in the Lion’s ear, “can’t we – I mean, you won’t, will you? Can’t we do something about the Deep Magic? Isn’t there something you can work against it?”
“Work against the Emperor’s magic?” said Aslan turning to her with something like a frown on his face. And nobody ever made that suggestion to him again …
“Fall back, all of you,” said Aslan, “and I will talk to the Witch alone.”
They all obeyed…
At last they heard Aslan’s voice. You can all come back,” he said. “I have settled the matter. She has renounced the claim on your brother’s blood.” And all over the hill there was a noise as if everyone had been holding his breath and had now begun breathing again, and then a murmur of talk.
The relief at Aslan’s apparent rescue of Edmund is short lived. Susan and Lucy notice that Aslan’s mood has changed. Late at night as Aslan leaves camp, the girls follow him at a distance. When discovered, they join Aslan and comfort him without knowing the source of his sorrow. Aslan requires the girls to stop following him at a certain point and goes on alone to turn himself over to the Witch and her minions. The girls watch in horror as Aslan is bound, shaved, humiliated and tortured. As he lies on the giant stone table, we learn from the White Witch why she has renounced her claim on Edmund:
At last she [the White Witch] drew near. She stood by Aslan’s head … just before she gave the blow, she stooped down and said in a quivering voice, “And now, who has won? Fool, did you think that by all this you would save the human traitor? Now I will kill you instead of him as our pact was and so the Deep Magic will be appeased. But when you are dead what will prevent me from killing him as well? And who will take him out of my hand then? Understand that you have given me Narnia forever, you have lost your own life and you have not saved his. In that knowledge, despair and die.”
The children did not see the actual moment of the killing. They couldn’t bear to look and had covered their eyes.
The girls spend the rest of the night in grief. When the Witch leaves, they go to Aslan’s body and, with the help of some mice, they free him from the cords that bound him. They walk away from the Stone Table and we pick up the story at the first moment of sunrise:
The rising of the sun had made everything look so different – all the colours and shadows were changed – that for a moment they didn’t see the important thing. Then they did. The Stone Table was broken in two pieces by a great crack that ran down it from end to end; and there was no Aslan.
“Oh, oh, oh!” cried the two girls rushing back to the Table.
“Oh, it’s too bad,” sobbed Lucy; “they might have left the body alone.”
“Who’s done it?” cried Susan. “What does it mean? Is it more magic?”
“Yes!” said a great voice behind their backs. “It is more magic.” They looked round. There, shining in the sunrise, larger than they had seen him before, shaking his mane … stood Aslan himself.
“Oh, Aslan!’ cried both the children, staring up at him, almost as much frightened as they were glad.
“Aren’t you dead then, dear Aslan?” said Lucy.
“Not now,” said Aslan.
“You’re not – not a – ?” asked Susan in a shaky voice. She couldn’t bring herself to say the word ghost.
Aslan stooped his golden head and licked her forehead. The warmth of his breath and a rich sort of smell that seemed to hang about his hair came all over her.
“Do I look it?” he said.
“Oh, you’re real, you’re real! Oh, Aslan!” cried Lucy and both girls flung themselves upon him and covered him with kisses.
“But what does it all mean?” asked Susan when they were somewhat calmer.
“It means,” said Aslan, “that though the Witch knew the Deep Magic, there is a magic deeper still which she did not know. Her knowledge goes back only to the dawn of Time. But if she could have looked a little further back, into the stillness and the darkness before Time dawned, she would have read there a different incantation. She would have known that when a willing victim who had committed no treachery was killed in a traitor’s stead, the Table would crack and Death itself would start working backwards…”
Here is a rich and profoundly biblical understanding of the significance of the death of Christ. First of all, we learn early on that the White Witch has all Narnia under her thumb. This echoes the words of Paul who calls Satan the god of this world and John who tells us that the whole world lies in the power of the Evil One.
The Witch has brought on a perpetual winter – winter being a symbol of death. Edmund’s treachery brings him under her control and she has a right to kill him as a result. She rules over a kingdom of death just as Satan holds the power of death in this world (Hebrews 2:14-15).
In fact, think of any passage in Scripture that speaks about the death and resurrection of Christ and see if it does not fit with the Christus Victor view held by the early church and illustrated in Lewis’ fantasy.
Aslan gives himself as a ransom for Edmund (Matthew 20:28, Mark 10:45, I Timothy 2:5-6). The wages of Edmund’s sin is death (Romans 6:23). Death is a power that the White Witch holds over Edmund and Aslan breaks this power by his own death (Hebrews 2:14). Aslan was “bruised” for Edmund’s iniquity and “crushed” for Edmund’s transgressions and the consequences of Edmund’s transgression was laid on Aslan (Isaiah 53:5-6). Aslan removes the effects of Edmund’s sin by the sacrifice of himself (Hebrews 9:26). Without the shedding of blood, there would be no forgiveness for Edmund (Hebrews 9:22). Aslan redeems Edmund from the curse of the Deep Magic [law] (Galatians 3:13). Aslan, by his blood, releases Edmund from his sin (Revelation 1:5).
But what about justice? The common view of the atonement places a heavy emphasis on justice. It focuses on the fact that the penalty for sin is death and the penalty must be paid. A just God, it is claimed, must punish sin. He cannot let it go unpunished and be true to his character.
The passage cited most frequently that connects the atonement with justice is from chapter 3 of Romans. Romans 3:25-26 says that the redemption provided in the death of Christ was to demonstrate God’s righteousness “… because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.” Or, one might think also of I Peter 3:18 where we learn that Christ died as “the just for the unjust”.
The Christus Victor view also incorporates the concept of justice but it does so in a profoundly different way. In the common view of the atonement, God dies to be just towards himself; in the Christus Victor view, God dies so as not to be unjust towards Satan. Having created a world where disobedience would make people subject to death (Genesis 2:16-17) and to Satan’s power, God will not simply overrule this by force. He makes himself subject to his own rules and find another way to undo the effects of the Fall.
Lewis’ portrayal of the Christus Victor view captures these biblical themes. The Deep Magic, put into Narnia by the Emperor (God, the Father), gives the White Witch the right to kill Edmund. She has the power of death over him. This right cannot be undone by force as the Minotaur suggests. It would be unjust. And so Aslan dies – the just for the unjust. Aslan is just, and the justifier, of Edmund.
Of course, the Witch does not realize that her murder of Aslan will be her undoing. As Aslan later reveals, her knowledge goes back only to the dawn of time. She is a created being. She is not omniscient and does not know that there is a Deeper Magic – a higher law that will undo death itself if the Witch over-reaches and kills an innocent victim in the place of a guilty party.
This is profoundly biblical too. The gospel – the death and resurrection of Christ – is a mystery that was hidden by God for centuries (Romans 16:25-26, Ephesians 3:9-10, Colossians 1:26). For example, Romans 16:25-26 says that the gospel is a “… revelation of the mystery which has been kept secret for long ages past, but now is manifested … according to the commandment of the eternal God …”. Ephesians 3:9-10 sheds even more light on this matter when Paul reveals that God called him to “bring to light what is the administration of the mystery which for ages has been hidden in God who created all things; so that the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known through the church to the rulers and the authorities in the heavenly places.” Here, the secret wisdom of God [the Deeper Magic] that was hidden for ages has now been made known to the demonic powers (rulers and authorities in the heavenly places).
An even more explicit statement of this fact is found in I Corinthians 2:6-8 which says, “Yet we do speak wisdom among those who are mature; a wisdom, however, not of this age nor of the rulers of this age, who are passing away; but we speak God's wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God predestined before the ages to our glory; the wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood; for if they had understood it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory; …”. Here again, the rulers of this age (demonic powers – the whole world lies under their power, remember) brought about the death of Christ but would not have done so if they had understood that this would break the power of death that they hold over the world. The power of death that was brought into the world by Adam is undone by Christ (I Corinthians 15:21). Lewis' tale captures these rarely appreciated biblical themes. It makes me appreciate what Paul is getting at in these passages in Romans, I Corinthians, Ephesians and Colossians.
But doesn’t all this mean that God tricked Satan? Doesn’t it mean that God was somehow deceitful or even unjust? Wasn’t Aslan deceitful in how he treated the White Witch?
This objection to the Christus Victor view is part of the reason why it fell into disfavor. Early theologians sometimes used some very colorful analogies to try to explain the Christus Victor view. These overly fanciful stories may have caused later believers to miss the deep theological insights of the early church fathers.
But we should not be too quick to reject the Christus Victor view on the grounds of deceit. The concept of evil sowing the seeds of its own destruction is found in Scripture. Consider just three examples from Psalms and Proverbs:
Ps 7:15-16
He has dug a pit and hollowed it out,
And has fallen into the hole which he made.
His mischief will return upon his own head,
And his violence will descend upon his own pate.
Ps 57:6
They have prepared a net for my steps;
My soul is bowed down;
They dug a pit before me;
They themselves have fallen into the midst of it. Selah.
Prov 26:27
He who digs a pit will fall into it,
And he who rolls a stone, it will come back on him.
For my money, the Christus Victor view of the atonement does a much better job on encapsulating all that Scripture has to say about the significance of the Christ’s death and resurrection. It includes Satan in the picture while the common view leaves Satan out. This alone makes the Christus Victor view more comprehensive.
So much more needs to be said which is why there will be a Part 4 to this blog. In Part 4, we’ll consider some implications of the common view and the Christus Victor view of the atonement. I will give more reasons why the latter view is superior and I will explore how it can change our day-to-day lives in rich and significant ways.
Saturday, March 7, 2009
Atonement - Part 2
In Part 1 of this blog, we looked at the common view of the atonement that is widely held in evangelical circles today. In Part 2, we look at a different point of view -- a view that was held by the church for the first thousand years of its existence.
The Christus Victor View of the Atonement
The early church had a view of the atonement that has come to be known as the Christus Victor view: Christ died and rose again to defeat Satan and to free us from his kingdom of darkness and death. As the writer of Hebrews explains, God became a man so that “… through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, …” (Hebrews 2:14). I find it fascinating that Satan holds the power of death. Satan loves death (John 8:44) while, in contrast, God takes no delight in the death of the wicked (Ezekiel 18:23, 33:11).
Scripture teaches that Satan rebelled against God long ago and is engaged in a war with God that continues to this day (Revelation 12:13-17). Adam and Eve were created to have dominion over the earth (Genesis 1:28) but they were warned that they would “surely die” (Genesis 2:17) if they ate fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. When I put Genesis 2 and Hebrews 2 together, the obvious implication is that eating from the forbidden tree put Adam and Eve under Satan’s dominion and control – under the control of the kingdom of death.
Imagine that you are caught committing a murder in a country that has a mandatory death penalty for murder. You become subject to all the rules and regulations and authority of that country’s legal system. By committing the murder, you will “surely die” because you have now become subject to a system that demands your death and even delights in your death.
I believe this is what Adam and Eve did – they gave Satan authority over their lives and over God’s creation. All of us have been born into this world where the Devil now has a large measure of control – a situation we have made worse by failing to follow God ourselves (John 8:34).
All of the New Testament affirms this picture of the world as a kingdom that is ruled by Satan. John tells us that "the whole world lies under the power of the Evil One" (I John 5:19). Paul calls Satan the “god of this world” (II Corinthians 4:4). On three different occasions, Jesus refers to Satan as the “prince of this present age” (John 12:31, 14:30, 16:11). The word “prince” always denoted the highest ruling official in a city or region. Thus, Jesus is affirming the idea that Satan is the ruler of this world. Also, recall what Satan himself says to Jesus in the wilderness temptation. In exchange for Jesus’ worship of him, the Devil offers to hand over dominion to all the kingdoms of the earth because “it has been handed over to me, and I give it to whomever I wish.” (Luke 4:6). Jesus does not dispute Satan’s claim to have dominion over all the earth – a dominion that he seems to have obtained at the Fall described in Genesis 3.
Jesus, unlike Adam and Eve, resisted this demonic temptation. He was on a mission to reclaim the world from Satan’s domination. As John tells us, Jesus “… came to destroy the works of the devil” (I John 3:8). Paul informs us that Christ, by his death and resurrection, “disarmed the rulers and authorities” – a reference to demonic powers (Colossians 2:15). The original messianic prophecy was that Satan would strike the heel of someone born of the woman but that same someone would crush Satan’s head (Genesis 3:15). This is fulfilled since it is the demonic powers that got Jesus crucified (I Corinthians 2:8, Luke 22:3) and yet his resurrection ended up being their defeat (Colossians 2:15).
This theme of the defeat of demonic powers is played out first in Jesus own life. Satan is after Jesus from day one. The Devil causes Herod to order the slaughter of all baby boys under two years old in an attempt to kill the Messiah (Revelation 12:4). Immediately after his baptism and the beginning of his public ministry, Satan comes to tempt Jesus (Luke 4:1, Matthew 4:1). The Pharisees and the Sadducees are children of the devil (John 8:44) and thus all of Christ’s encounters with these misguided people are battles with demonic forces. Tragically, Satan even attacks Jesus through his own friends – Peter’s denial and Judas betrayal being two prominent episodes prompted by Satan’s influence.
But Jesus does not succumb to any of these attacks. In fact, he shows that he has power and authority over demonic forces. He demonstrates authority over foul spirits by regularly exorcising demons as part of his healing ministry. After demonstrating this for quite a while himself, he sends his disciples out to do the same and he does this on more than one occasion (Luke 9:1, Luke 10:1). When they return and report “that even the demons are subject to us in your name”, Jesus is ecstatic as he reports that “he saw Satan fall like lightening.” Jesus and his disciples are taking authority over the god of this world and beginning to reclaim lost territory. This is so prominent a part of the gospel story that Paul later summarizes the life of Christ this way: “He went around doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the Devil.” (Acts 20:28)
Jesus had a very interesting encounter with some Scribes and Pharisees one day. It is recorded in all three synoptic gospels (Matthew 12, Mark 3, Luke 11). Jesus healed a demon possessed man who was made deaf and mute by the demon. Jesus' opponents started saying that Jesus could do this because he himself was possessed by a demon. Jesus points out that this is foolish. A divided kingdom cannot stand. It would be counterproductive for demonic powers to wage war against other demonic powers. Thus, Jesus argues, if the fruit of his work is things that are consistent with the kingdom of God (normal hearing and speech) and inconsistent with the kingdom of Satan, then he (Jesus) must be acting on behalf of the kingdom of God.
In two of the three accounts, Jesus then goes on to give an interesting analogy. He says that a strong man who guards his house cannot have his things taken away unless one stronger than he comes along to plunder him. The clear implication is that Jesus is the “strong man” of the story. He is stronger than Satan as evidenced by the fact that he can undo the death and destruction that Satan brings on people and creation. Jesus’ life and ministry is a consistent demonstration of this.
What is true of Jesus’ life is also true of his death and resurrection. In them, he defeats Satan and frees people from demonic control. I think the most startling passage in this regards is the one in Hebrews that I mentioned before. The whole purpose of God becoming a man is so that “… through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, …” (Hebrews 2:14).
The only metaphor Jesus uses to explain his mission is to describe it as a “ransom”. “The son of Man did not come to be served but to serve,” Jesus said, “and to give his life as a ransom for many.” (Matthew 20:28) Paul picks up on this theme in I Timothy 2:5-6 where he observes that “… there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all, …”.
Now a ransom is a price paid to free a person from the dominion and control and captivity of another person. And this is exactly what Paul reveals is behind the death and resurrection of Christ: “For He [God] rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.” (Colossians 1:13-14). We are rescued from Satan’s kingdom and restored to God’s kingdom just like a kidnap victim is rescued from his kidnapper and restore to his family. Death is no longer the ultimate master of our fate since we have been rescued from Satan’s kingdom.
The most common word used to describe Christ’s death and resurrection is the word “redemption”. You see it used in the Colossians passage quoted above. Redemption was something that happened in the slave market. You could go to the slave market to buy a slave to keep for yourself. You could also redeem a slave by paying the price to release him from slavery. Here again we have a metaphor that emphasizes kingdoms or dominions. As a slave, you are subject to all the rules and authorities of slavery. But if someone purchases you out of that system, you are no long subject to its authority. Redemption is closely tied to the idea of purchase and the New Testament writers frequently explain that we have been purchased by the death (blood) of Christ (I Peter 1:18-19, Acts 20:28, Revelation 5:9).
Over and over, we see the theme of rescue from one kingdom and deliverance to another kingdom in the metaphors used to describe the death and resurrection of Christ. And this makes sense, doesn’t it? We are all subject to various kingdoms. I’m subject to the laws of the United States and the State of Colorado. I’m not subject to the laws of Texas unless I visit there and violate some rule that brings me under their control. I’m subject to ethical rules governing real estate agents and mortgage brokers imposed on me by certain trade associations that I’ve joined. In contrast, I’m not subject to the rules of the teachers’ union since I have never joined their organization.
There is so much more to say on this topic. There are so many other passages of Scripture we could discuss. But I’ll stop here for the moment and give you a teaser for Part 3 of the blog: You have probably encounter the Christus Victor view of atonement before and may not have even realized it. You’ve encountered it if you have read The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe by C. S. Lewis (I'm getting better; It took me 1,751 words this time before I mentioned Lewis). In the next installment, we'll see how Lewis weaves the Christus Victor view into the story.
The Christus Victor View of the Atonement
The early church had a view of the atonement that has come to be known as the Christus Victor view: Christ died and rose again to defeat Satan and to free us from his kingdom of darkness and death. As the writer of Hebrews explains, God became a man so that “… through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, …” (Hebrews 2:14). I find it fascinating that Satan holds the power of death. Satan loves death (John 8:44) while, in contrast, God takes no delight in the death of the wicked (Ezekiel 18:23, 33:11).
Scripture teaches that Satan rebelled against God long ago and is engaged in a war with God that continues to this day (Revelation 12:13-17). Adam and Eve were created to have dominion over the earth (Genesis 1:28) but they were warned that they would “surely die” (Genesis 2:17) if they ate fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. When I put Genesis 2 and Hebrews 2 together, the obvious implication is that eating from the forbidden tree put Adam and Eve under Satan’s dominion and control – under the control of the kingdom of death.
Imagine that you are caught committing a murder in a country that has a mandatory death penalty for murder. You become subject to all the rules and regulations and authority of that country’s legal system. By committing the murder, you will “surely die” because you have now become subject to a system that demands your death and even delights in your death.
I believe this is what Adam and Eve did – they gave Satan authority over their lives and over God’s creation. All of us have been born into this world where the Devil now has a large measure of control – a situation we have made worse by failing to follow God ourselves (John 8:34).
All of the New Testament affirms this picture of the world as a kingdom that is ruled by Satan. John tells us that "the whole world lies under the power of the Evil One" (I John 5:19). Paul calls Satan the “god of this world” (II Corinthians 4:4). On three different occasions, Jesus refers to Satan as the “prince of this present age” (John 12:31, 14:30, 16:11). The word “prince” always denoted the highest ruling official in a city or region. Thus, Jesus is affirming the idea that Satan is the ruler of this world. Also, recall what Satan himself says to Jesus in the wilderness temptation. In exchange for Jesus’ worship of him, the Devil offers to hand over dominion to all the kingdoms of the earth because “it has been handed over to me, and I give it to whomever I wish.” (Luke 4:6). Jesus does not dispute Satan’s claim to have dominion over all the earth – a dominion that he seems to have obtained at the Fall described in Genesis 3.
Jesus, unlike Adam and Eve, resisted this demonic temptation. He was on a mission to reclaim the world from Satan’s domination. As John tells us, Jesus “… came to destroy the works of the devil” (I John 3:8). Paul informs us that Christ, by his death and resurrection, “disarmed the rulers and authorities” – a reference to demonic powers (Colossians 2:15). The original messianic prophecy was that Satan would strike the heel of someone born of the woman but that same someone would crush Satan’s head (Genesis 3:15). This is fulfilled since it is the demonic powers that got Jesus crucified (I Corinthians 2:8, Luke 22:3) and yet his resurrection ended up being their defeat (Colossians 2:15).
This theme of the defeat of demonic powers is played out first in Jesus own life. Satan is after Jesus from day one. The Devil causes Herod to order the slaughter of all baby boys under two years old in an attempt to kill the Messiah (Revelation 12:4). Immediately after his baptism and the beginning of his public ministry, Satan comes to tempt Jesus (Luke 4:1, Matthew 4:1). The Pharisees and the Sadducees are children of the devil (John 8:44) and thus all of Christ’s encounters with these misguided people are battles with demonic forces. Tragically, Satan even attacks Jesus through his own friends – Peter’s denial and Judas betrayal being two prominent episodes prompted by Satan’s influence.
But Jesus does not succumb to any of these attacks. In fact, he shows that he has power and authority over demonic forces. He demonstrates authority over foul spirits by regularly exorcising demons as part of his healing ministry. After demonstrating this for quite a while himself, he sends his disciples out to do the same and he does this on more than one occasion (Luke 9:1, Luke 10:1). When they return and report “that even the demons are subject to us in your name”, Jesus is ecstatic as he reports that “he saw Satan fall like lightening.” Jesus and his disciples are taking authority over the god of this world and beginning to reclaim lost territory. This is so prominent a part of the gospel story that Paul later summarizes the life of Christ this way: “He went around doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the Devil.” (Acts 20:28)
Jesus had a very interesting encounter with some Scribes and Pharisees one day. It is recorded in all three synoptic gospels (Matthew 12, Mark 3, Luke 11). Jesus healed a demon possessed man who was made deaf and mute by the demon. Jesus' opponents started saying that Jesus could do this because he himself was possessed by a demon. Jesus points out that this is foolish. A divided kingdom cannot stand. It would be counterproductive for demonic powers to wage war against other demonic powers. Thus, Jesus argues, if the fruit of his work is things that are consistent with the kingdom of God (normal hearing and speech) and inconsistent with the kingdom of Satan, then he (Jesus) must be acting on behalf of the kingdom of God.
In two of the three accounts, Jesus then goes on to give an interesting analogy. He says that a strong man who guards his house cannot have his things taken away unless one stronger than he comes along to plunder him. The clear implication is that Jesus is the “strong man” of the story. He is stronger than Satan as evidenced by the fact that he can undo the death and destruction that Satan brings on people and creation. Jesus’ life and ministry is a consistent demonstration of this.
What is true of Jesus’ life is also true of his death and resurrection. In them, he defeats Satan and frees people from demonic control. I think the most startling passage in this regards is the one in Hebrews that I mentioned before. The whole purpose of God becoming a man is so that “… through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, …” (Hebrews 2:14).
The only metaphor Jesus uses to explain his mission is to describe it as a “ransom”. “The son of Man did not come to be served but to serve,” Jesus said, “and to give his life as a ransom for many.” (Matthew 20:28) Paul picks up on this theme in I Timothy 2:5-6 where he observes that “… there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all, …”.
Now a ransom is a price paid to free a person from the dominion and control and captivity of another person. And this is exactly what Paul reveals is behind the death and resurrection of Christ: “For He [God] rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.” (Colossians 1:13-14). We are rescued from Satan’s kingdom and restored to God’s kingdom just like a kidnap victim is rescued from his kidnapper and restore to his family. Death is no longer the ultimate master of our fate since we have been rescued from Satan’s kingdom.
The most common word used to describe Christ’s death and resurrection is the word “redemption”. You see it used in the Colossians passage quoted above. Redemption was something that happened in the slave market. You could go to the slave market to buy a slave to keep for yourself. You could also redeem a slave by paying the price to release him from slavery. Here again we have a metaphor that emphasizes kingdoms or dominions. As a slave, you are subject to all the rules and authorities of slavery. But if someone purchases you out of that system, you are no long subject to its authority. Redemption is closely tied to the idea of purchase and the New Testament writers frequently explain that we have been purchased by the death (blood) of Christ (I Peter 1:18-19, Acts 20:28, Revelation 5:9).
Over and over, we see the theme of rescue from one kingdom and deliverance to another kingdom in the metaphors used to describe the death and resurrection of Christ. And this makes sense, doesn’t it? We are all subject to various kingdoms. I’m subject to the laws of the United States and the State of Colorado. I’m not subject to the laws of Texas unless I visit there and violate some rule that brings me under their control. I’m subject to ethical rules governing real estate agents and mortgage brokers imposed on me by certain trade associations that I’ve joined. In contrast, I’m not subject to the rules of the teachers’ union since I have never joined their organization.
There is so much more to say on this topic. There are so many other passages of Scripture we could discuss. But I’ll stop here for the moment and give you a teaser for Part 3 of the blog: You have probably encounter the Christus Victor view of atonement before and may not have even realized it. You’ve encountered it if you have read The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe by C. S. Lewis (I'm getting better; It took me 1,751 words this time before I mentioned Lewis). In the next installment, we'll see how Lewis weaves the Christus Victor view into the story.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Atonement - Part 1
Introduction
Reinhold Niebuhr wrote, “You may be able to compel people to maintain certain minimum standards by stressing duty. But the highest moral and spiritual achievements depend not upon a push but a pull. People must be charmed into righteousness.”
“Charmed into righteousness” … that is an intriguing phrase. I’ve often thought that the typical evangelical Christian understanding of the purpose of Jesus’ death is less than charming. It runs like this: Christ died to pay the penalty for our sins – a penalty demanded by God’s justice. To many evangelical believers, this appears to be the plain and obvious teaching of Scripture.
Of course, the important issue is not whether this viewpoint is charming; the important question is whether it is biblical. And, at one level, the standard understanding is biblical. We can all think of passages that support it.
But is it the whole story? Is there more? Many evangelical Christians would be surprised to learn that the view of the atonement described above did not begin to be formally developed until 1100 A.D. by St. Anselm and that the doctrine was brought to its present formulation by the reformers in the 16th and 17th centuries.
This startling historical fact should at least arouse some curiosity. How can a concept that was not formally developed for over fifteen hundred years after the death of Christ be seen as fundamental to a proper understanding of the gospel? What did Christians believe about the death of Christ prior to the Reformation?
More importantly, does the standard understanding of the purpose of Jesus’ death really conform to what the Bible says? Does it fully cover all that is revealed in Scripture?
In this multi-part blog, these are some of the questions I want to address. I’ll begin by saying a bit more about the commonly accepted view. Then, we’ll look at human tendencies to see what we expect to see and miss things that we do not expect. Next, we’ll examine how that tendency may be keeping us from seeing another view of the atonement that is presented in Scripture … a view that held sway in the church for over a thousand years. Finally, we’ll consider the implications of the different views to see if it makes any difference in how we live our daily lives.
I know. I know. You might be thinking, “Can a heavy-duty, theological topic possibly be relevant to my life? I’ve got bills to pay. I’ve got to get my kids to soccer. The economy is teetering on catastrophe. It may be the end of civilization as we know it. My gosh – football season recently ended and won’t be back for six months! I’ve got bigger fish to fry and can’t afford to waste time on some bit of esoteric theological nonsense.”
I understand that reaction. Theology as commonly practiced can be terminally boring and massively impracticable. But then I always remember what C. S. Lewis said at the beginning of the 4th section of Mere Christianity (for those of you keeping track, it took me 481 words before I mentioned Lewis). He said that he had been warned not to try to explain theology to people – he was told that people just wanted “practical religion”. Apparently, that advice was mistaken since Mere Christianity has sold gazillions of copies and it has tons of theology in it.
I’m not claiming that I’ll be as entertaining or insightful as Lewis but I can tell you that new perspectives on the atonement have made a profound difference in my own day-to-day relationship with God. Perhaps it will do the same for you.
Common View of the Atonement
Christ died to pay the penalty for our sins. This is the way most evangelical Christians would respond if asked to explain the purpose for Christ’s death. If asked to elaborate, the story would go something like this: God loves us – his people whom he created. God is also holy and perfectly just. This creates a dilemma for God because all people have violated his laws and fallen short of his standards. Everyone is a “sinner”. The penalty for these violations of God’s law is death. In his justice, God cannot let these sins go unpunished. But God, out of his grace and mercy, has provided a way out. God himself became a man and died for us. He suffered the penalty for us. With the penalty paid and his justice satisfied, God is now free to pursue a relationship of love with us.
Scriptural support for this view seems abundant and obvious. In its simplest formulation, we know from the Bible that all people have sinned (Romans 3:23), that death is the penalty for sin (Romans 6:23) and that Christ died for our sins (I Corinthians 15:3). Each of these ideas has abundant scriptural support:
Reinhold Niebuhr wrote, “You may be able to compel people to maintain certain minimum standards by stressing duty. But the highest moral and spiritual achievements depend not upon a push but a pull. People must be charmed into righteousness.”
“Charmed into righteousness” … that is an intriguing phrase. I’ve often thought that the typical evangelical Christian understanding of the purpose of Jesus’ death is less than charming. It runs like this: Christ died to pay the penalty for our sins – a penalty demanded by God’s justice. To many evangelical believers, this appears to be the plain and obvious teaching of Scripture.
Of course, the important issue is not whether this viewpoint is charming; the important question is whether it is biblical. And, at one level, the standard understanding is biblical. We can all think of passages that support it.
But is it the whole story? Is there more? Many evangelical Christians would be surprised to learn that the view of the atonement described above did not begin to be formally developed until 1100 A.D. by St. Anselm and that the doctrine was brought to its present formulation by the reformers in the 16th and 17th centuries.
This startling historical fact should at least arouse some curiosity. How can a concept that was not formally developed for over fifteen hundred years after the death of Christ be seen as fundamental to a proper understanding of the gospel? What did Christians believe about the death of Christ prior to the Reformation?
More importantly, does the standard understanding of the purpose of Jesus’ death really conform to what the Bible says? Does it fully cover all that is revealed in Scripture?
In this multi-part blog, these are some of the questions I want to address. I’ll begin by saying a bit more about the commonly accepted view. Then, we’ll look at human tendencies to see what we expect to see and miss things that we do not expect. Next, we’ll examine how that tendency may be keeping us from seeing another view of the atonement that is presented in Scripture … a view that held sway in the church for over a thousand years. Finally, we’ll consider the implications of the different views to see if it makes any difference in how we live our daily lives.
I know. I know. You might be thinking, “Can a heavy-duty, theological topic possibly be relevant to my life? I’ve got bills to pay. I’ve got to get my kids to soccer. The economy is teetering on catastrophe. It may be the end of civilization as we know it. My gosh – football season recently ended and won’t be back for six months! I’ve got bigger fish to fry and can’t afford to waste time on some bit of esoteric theological nonsense.”
I understand that reaction. Theology as commonly practiced can be terminally boring and massively impracticable. But then I always remember what C. S. Lewis said at the beginning of the 4th section of Mere Christianity (for those of you keeping track, it took me 481 words before I mentioned Lewis). He said that he had been warned not to try to explain theology to people – he was told that people just wanted “practical religion”. Apparently, that advice was mistaken since Mere Christianity has sold gazillions of copies and it has tons of theology in it.
I’m not claiming that I’ll be as entertaining or insightful as Lewis but I can tell you that new perspectives on the atonement have made a profound difference in my own day-to-day relationship with God. Perhaps it will do the same for you.
Common View of the Atonement
Christ died to pay the penalty for our sins. This is the way most evangelical Christians would respond if asked to explain the purpose for Christ’s death. If asked to elaborate, the story would go something like this: God loves us – his people whom he created. God is also holy and perfectly just. This creates a dilemma for God because all people have violated his laws and fallen short of his standards. Everyone is a “sinner”. The penalty for these violations of God’s law is death. In his justice, God cannot let these sins go unpunished. But God, out of his grace and mercy, has provided a way out. God himself became a man and died for us. He suffered the penalty for us. With the penalty paid and his justice satisfied, God is now free to pursue a relationship of love with us.
Scriptural support for this view seems abundant and obvious. In its simplest formulation, we know from the Bible that all people have sinned (Romans 3:23), that death is the penalty for sin (Romans 6:23) and that Christ died for our sins (I Corinthians 15:3). Each of these ideas has abundant scriptural support:
- All people have sinned. In fact, we are all sinners who have indulged in evil (Ephesians 2:3). Paul declares that "There is no one righteous, … All have turned away …” (Romans 3:10-11).
- Death is the penalty for sin. We are “children of wrath” (Ephesians 2:3) who deserve God’s righteous judgment. We are “dead in sin” (Ephesians 2:1). We are dead men walking.
- Christ died for our sins. The Old Testament sacrificial system was designed to teach us that there is no forgiveness without death (Hebrews 9:22). The mission of the Messiah is clearly stated in Isaiah 53:5: “But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed.” Paul agrees: “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” (II Corinthians 5:21).
There is no question that all of this is scriptural. But is it the whole story? Does it exhaust the biblical revelation on this topic? Is something missing?
Paradigms
Before we consider what may be missing, it will be helpful to think for a moment about how and why human beings sometimes fail to see things that are right in front of them.
In his influential book entitled The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Thomas Kuhn explored the role that expectations play in our understanding of reality. The conceptual framework that a person brings to a subject heavily influences what that person sees and how he interprets his observations. Kuhn popularized the word “paradigm” to describe the constellation of ideas that a person uses to make sense of a particular topic.
Kuhn describes an experiment conducted by psychologists to illustrate the role that paradigms play in what we see and experience. The experiment involved playing cards – cards you would use to play bridge or poker.
Everyone familiar with a deck of cards has a paradigm about them. There are four different suits and two colors. Hearts and diamonds are red while spades and clubs are black.
In the psychology experiment, subjects were shown pictures of playing cards projected on a screen at a fast speed and they were asked to identify the cards. Mixed in with the normal cards were some “anomalous” cards. For example, the deck might include a five of hearts that was black instead of red. Subjects would initially identify that card as either a five of hearts or as a five of spades or as a five of clubs – fitting it in with existing categories dictated by their playing card paradigm.
As the projector was slowed down and subjects were allowed to see the cards for a longer period of time, they began to realize that something was wrong and they would get confused. They would see things that were not there. For example a subject might remark about the black five of hearts, “Well, that is a five of hearts but it has a black border around it.”
Eventually, with sufficiently lengthy exposure, most subjects would correctly identify the card as a five of hearts that had been "mistakenly" printed in black. With an adjusted paradigm, subjects were able to identify anomalous cards quickly and easily even when the projector was returned to its original speed. They were now prepared to see what was really there instead of just seeing what they expected.
Kuhn applied this insight to the history of science. He argued that outdated scientific theories often did a good job of explaining a constellation of observed facts. However, every theory is eventually challenged by some anomalous phenomena that do not fit the theory. Changes from one scientific theory to another theory occur when a scientist, usually someone young or otherwise new to the field, devises a different theory that accounts for all of the previously observed facts and that also explains the newer, anomalous facts. Kuhn gives numerous examples from the history of science to support his thesis and he describes the messy, controversial and acrimonious process that leads to changes in scientific theories.
Do these insights from Kuhn have any application in our study of the Bible? Do our theologies shape what we see and cause us to miss other things that are actually there? Does scripture reveal more about the atonement than we have commonly supposed?
I believe that the answer to all of these questions is “Yes.”
The early church had a view of the atonement that has come to be known as the Christus Victor view. In their minds, Christ died and rose again to defeat Satan and to free us from his kingdom of darkness and death. At the writer of Hebrews explains, God became a man so that “… through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, …” (Hebrews 2:14).
Did you know this? Did you know that Satan holds the power of death? Satan loves death while, in contrast, God takes no delight in the death of the wicked (Ezekiel 18:23, 33:11).The Christus Victor view begins with these insights and I’ll need Part 2 of this blog to fully explain it.
Monday, December 29, 2008
Michael Crichton Died Recently!
I'm probably the only one on the planet who missed the news that Michael Crichton died on November 8th of this year. He died of throat cancer at age 66. I hadn't heard about his death until about a week ago.
Crichton graduated summa cum laude from Harvard College, received his MD from Harvard Medical School, and was a postdoctoral fellow at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, researching public policy with Jacob Bronowski. He taught courses in anthropology at Cambridge University and writing at MIT.
However, Crichton is best known as a writer and filmmaker. He wrote The Andromeda Strain and Jurassic Park and created the TV series ER. His 2004 novel entitled State of Fear challenged the alleged scientific consensus about global warming both in its plot line and in a non-fictional afterword and two appendicies. Crichton was concerned that science in general was losing its objectivity and was being co-opted by political interests.
I was very impressed by a speech he gave in 2003 entitled Environmentalism as Religion. I recently re-read that speech to get some quotes for a project I was working on. In the course of doing so, I learned that Crichton had died recently.
I started reading some of his other speeches and found them as insightful as the original essay that brought him to my attention. He wrote a lot about science -- both about it potential and about its misuse.
He was a gifted writer. To wet your appetite, consider this gem about a headline from a so called "scientific" study. The headline read: “How Many Species Exist? The question takes on increasing significance as plants and animals vanish before scientists can even identify them.”
Commenting on this, Crichton says, "Now, wait a minute…How could you know something vanished before you identified it? If you didn’t know it existed, you wouldn’t have any way to know it was gone. Would you? In fact, the statement is nonsense. If you were never married you’d never know if your wife left you."
If you are interested, here is a Crichton sampler:
Environmentalism as Religion -- environmentalism appeals to urban atheists but it is almost a perfect parrallel to the Judeo-Christian religion (doubly interesting becasue I think Crichton was an urban atheist)
The Case for Skepticism on Global Warming -- a good discussion of various problems with global warming orthodoxy. Includes a helpful summary of the infamous "hockey stick" graph that is featured so prominently by global warming adovcates but which has been shown by other scientists to be inaccurate.
Testimony before the United State Senate -- regarding the proper role of science in public policy making.
Aliens Cause Global Warming -- a romp through beliefs in extraterrestials, nuclear winter and other discredited psuedo-scientific pursuits and how similar they are to the global warming issue of today.
Why Speculate? -- the opening two paragraphs of this speech are priceless.
Some of these speeches are quite long but all are, in my opinion, very insightful.
Enjoy!
Crichton graduated summa cum laude from Harvard College, received his MD from Harvard Medical School, and was a postdoctoral fellow at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, researching public policy with Jacob Bronowski. He taught courses in anthropology at Cambridge University and writing at MIT.
However, Crichton is best known as a writer and filmmaker. He wrote The Andromeda Strain and Jurassic Park and created the TV series ER. His 2004 novel entitled State of Fear challenged the alleged scientific consensus about global warming both in its plot line and in a non-fictional afterword and two appendicies. Crichton was concerned that science in general was losing its objectivity and was being co-opted by political interests.
I was very impressed by a speech he gave in 2003 entitled Environmentalism as Religion. I recently re-read that speech to get some quotes for a project I was working on. In the course of doing so, I learned that Crichton had died recently.
I started reading some of his other speeches and found them as insightful as the original essay that brought him to my attention. He wrote a lot about science -- both about it potential and about its misuse.
He was a gifted writer. To wet your appetite, consider this gem about a headline from a so called "scientific" study. The headline read: “How Many Species Exist? The question takes on increasing significance as plants and animals vanish before scientists can even identify them.”
Commenting on this, Crichton says, "Now, wait a minute…How could you know something vanished before you identified it? If you didn’t know it existed, you wouldn’t have any way to know it was gone. Would you? In fact, the statement is nonsense. If you were never married you’d never know if your wife left you."
If you are interested, here is a Crichton sampler:
Environmentalism as Religion -- environmentalism appeals to urban atheists but it is almost a perfect parrallel to the Judeo-Christian religion (doubly interesting becasue I think Crichton was an urban atheist)
The Case for Skepticism on Global Warming -- a good discussion of various problems with global warming orthodoxy. Includes a helpful summary of the infamous "hockey stick" graph that is featured so prominently by global warming adovcates but which has been shown by other scientists to be inaccurate.
Testimony before the United State Senate -- regarding the proper role of science in public policy making.
Aliens Cause Global Warming -- a romp through beliefs in extraterrestials, nuclear winter and other discredited psuedo-scientific pursuits and how similar they are to the global warming issue of today.
Why Speculate? -- the opening two paragraphs of this speech are priceless.
Some of these speeches are quite long but all are, in my opinion, very insightful.
Enjoy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)