I won't comment on the majority of the post. I won't try to defend my position. I won't deny that I believe orthodoxy to be important. I won't deny that I believe that it is important to believe the truth or, in other words, that orthodoxy (defined as "right thinking") trumps faith (defined as "what you believe to be true"). He says there that I believe that "spiritual bankruptcy" is necessary to get to salvation, and I can't disagree (nor, it seems, does Christ in the Beatitudes). There's no point in trying to argue these issues. Here is what I wanted to comment on.
Nothing in Pastor Shuck's original post comes out and says that Christ sacrifice was unnecessary.I don't mind being disagreed with. I don't even mind being misrepresented. (I have never suggested that Christians must all submit to a 7-day, 24-hour Creation to be considered orthodox or believers, for instance.) I would suggest that you revisit Pastor Shuck's post. I think you will find that he specifically says that Christ's sacrifice was unnecessary. Actually, what he says is "I and I imagine others have let go of the need for substitutionary atonement." He is arguing that Christ did not die for our sins because substitutionary atonement is a myth (and he argues elsewhere that neither did He rise from the dead) and that this story along with much of the Bible is myth.
While one might argue that "a group of people culturally linked by an eastern mindset" might be "free to take some liberty with details in pursuit of a larger truth", it seems that the "larger truth" of Christianity is precisely that Christ died for our sins. Shift it to metaphor or mythology if you like, but that is the undeniable message of the New Testament ... that is being denied by John Shuck.
And that is my objection -- not detail, but the primary message. Remove the Cross as essential and the Resurrection as important and you remove the Gospel in its entirety. It's not in the details; it is the message of the Bible and Christianity. Remove it and you remove any distinctive in Christianity whatsoever -- and, of course, any reliability to the doctrines of the Bible. In other words, folks, go there, and you're on your own. I'm not saying, "Don't go there." I'm saying if you do go there, don't call it "Christian."
(And may I say, in passing, that it is an honor to be noticed by someone as important as Street Prophet?)
5 comments:
For future reference, I think you can comment to posts there if you have an account. In the top right of the page there is a link to "Create account". There is a message on that page that there is an 8-hour waiting period for new comments.
Thanks, Trin. I doubt I'll often have need to comment on Street Prophet, but I suspected it was that "Create Account" button that would get me in.
Hi Stan
Looking over their articles at Street Prophet it seems that they are focused only on uniting secular liberal "theists". These would be folks who still believe there might be a God but who reject all the nasty sin stuff. Unfortunately for them, not believing sin exists or separates us from God is an atheistic position. [My birth family minus my mother thinks exactly like this so I'm speaking from experience.] Their real motivation is to promote secular liberalism under the false guise of "faith". They indeed have an orthodoxy, but it's just not Christian orthodoxy, as you made clear. Congrats on the notoriety!
“…the "larger truth" of Christianity is precisely that Christ died for our sins. Shift it to metaphor or mythology if you like, but that is the undeniable message of the New Testament...”
Why limit that truth to the New Testament? The ancient prophets testified of the Gospel as well. My favorite story from the Old Testament involves Abraham being instructed to sacrifice his only son; the most beautiful means of explaining the sacrifice that was to be made for the entire human race. Abraham was spared from having to complete the instructions by the appearance of a sacrificial substitute, one that should cause the reader of the parable to understand the purpose for Jesus Christ as the perfect sacrifice, one that had been part of the Great Plan of Salvation before the world was.
Yes, T.F., it is precisely the message of the entire Bible, beginning with Gen. 3 when Man sinned and made a substitutionary atonement necessary.
Jim, I can't figure out how "whatever you choose to believe is okay to call 'Christian' and superior to 'orthodoxy'" makes any sense to anyone in any venue. It is an view that removes all meaning and says, "There! That's real meaning." I understand what you said and agree.
Post a Comment