Here’s an excerpt from John Caputo’s The Weakness of God, p. 44 (which has been a good read):
On the classical account of strong theology, Jesus was just holding back his divine power in order to let his human nature suffer. He freely chose to check his power because the Father had a plan to redeem the world with his blood. But, if the Father had changed his mind, those Roman soldiers would rue the day they were born, as they will certainly rue it in eternity. On my accounting, that is to misconstrue this scene solely in terms of power, mundane power pitted against celestial power. On my accounting, Jesus was being crucified, not holding backl he was nailed there and being executes very much against his will and the will of God. And he never heard of Christianity’s novel idea that he was redeeming the world with his blood. His approach to evil was forgiveness, not paying off a debt due the Father, or the devil, with suffering or with anything else. His suffering was not a coin of the realm in the economy of the kingdom. The kingdom is not an economy and God is not in attendance at this scene as an accountant of divine debts or as a higher power watching the whole thing from up there and freely holding in check his infinite power to intervene. That is more rouged thology, weakness fantasizing about an orgasm of power–if not power now, then power later, when we can really get even with those hateful Romans. That is not the weakness of God that I am here defending. God, the event harbored by the name of God, is present at the crucifixion, as the power of the powerlessness of Jesus, in and as the protest against the injustice that rises up from the cross, in and as the words of forgiveness, not a deferred power that will be visited upon one’s enemies at a later time. God is in attendance as the weak force of the call that cries out from Calvary and calls across the epochs, that cries out from every corpse created by every cruel and unjust power. The logos of the cross is a call to renounce violence, not to conceal and defer it and then, in a stunning act that takes the enemy by surprise, to lay them low with real power, which shows the enemy who really has the power. That is just what Nietzsche was criticizing under the name of ressentiment.
Also, i put up a new link on the side yesterday. It is to the Church and Postmodernism Culture conversation blog. i was invited by the organizer (Geoff Holsclaw) a few weeks ago. The way i believe it will work is that the conversation will begin with a look at James K.A. Smith’s latest book, Who’s Afraid of Postmodernism? It is a good book for an introduction to postmodern philosophy, much like Stanley Grenz’s A Primer on Postmodernism. From what i understand, the people starting the discussion will be coming from various viewpoints both within and without postmodern thought, including some Radical Orthodoxy guys (James K.A. Smith and Geoff). It looks like i’m kinda representing the Nietzschean perspective, so that’ll be some fun. We hope to investigate postmodernism as it relates to theology, as well as other related areas. It looks like fun.
Update: It looks like Jason Clark (link) is also in on it.
Technorati Tags: Theology
It looks like this guy is definitly in line with your belief that substitutionary atonement is a false construct. I’m curious then, if Jesus’ death was not for the purpose of saving us all from damnation, what was it for? Is it some postmodern tragedy (don’t hate me for using that word) where the suffering is pointless? What then is the meaning of 1 Peter 2:24?
Well, it’s not that S.A. is a false construct, it’s just that it’s not the “original” message. It has a level of historicity to it. i’m not against changes in theology (such as S.A. was at it’s time). It is, though, that i see “tradition” as being a major source of our theology, even if Protestants claim otherwise. It is through tradition that we understand Scripture, and by saying that, i am implying that theology is still an open-ended set of beliefs, which is something many in the Reformed tradition claim to be wrong.
With the atonement, before Anselm the belief was less of a legal transation model and more of a sacrificial model. Jesus’ death wasn’t one to fulfill any kind of legal transaction (the God-as-Judge-and-Jury type of analogy) or even to pay for our sins (mainly the concept of imputed righteousness), but as a way of changing God’s view of the believer (mainly the concept of infused righteousness). But, i think this distinction is more hair-splitting than necessary. Just because something isn’t what was originally believed (e.g. Substitutionary Atonement, Premillenialism, etc) doesn’t mean that it’s wrong. It just means that it wasn’t thought of before.
Thank you for the clarification. I think I’m still a little unclear on the fine points of your disagreement, but I’m finding this is the subject of no little debate in contemporary theological circles. There’s a particularly fiery post about this here which has a line even I can agree with: “Stanley Hauerwas says, “If you need a theory to worship Christ, worship your f—ing theory!””
And believe it or not, I’m completely on board with your comment that theology is an open-ended set of beliefs, if within that comment is an understanding of certain immutable principles. We might disagree (as we have before) on which principles, but if we can agree that G-d is infinite, and the Creator responsible for the complexity with which we deal with around us, then it follows that our relationship with Him is necessarily complex, perhaps infinitely so, and that no one man’s (or two millenia’s worth of men’s) thinking about that relationship is going to be a complete understanding.
i think i agree with you. There are some “principles” that are unchanging within Christian theology/orthodoxy. The problem is that the application of such does change and clouds the water (so to speak). i like that Hauerwas quote, especially when taken into context.
With my disagreement, i don’t think i disagree with S.A.. It’s just that i like to acknowledge its historical context, which many who champion it as the “only true theology” fail to notice. We’re never going to “figure God out”–that’s an impossibility because of our limited/finite/fallen/whatever nature. But, through conversation, we may gain different perspectives that are helpful (if not outright nicer/cleaner). Of course, that doesn’t mean we won’t run into crap as well.