More on Grace and Justice

A follow up to my earlier post, “Neither Do I Condemn You...” and ongoing conversations about the various human theories about Atonement, as it relates to Christianity and salvation. Stan, at the Birds of the Air blog, recently posted about “The Awful Alternative...” where he talks about atonement theories.

On that blog post, Stan said that if we don't accept what Stan calls “traditional, biblical Christianity...” (and by which he means, if we don't accept the particular human traditions Stan believes in of understanding salvation in terms of either God paying a “ransom” for our “sins” or of Jesus “taking the punishment for our sins,” in place of us... ie, if we don't take the human traditions of evangelicals going back hundreds, maybe many hundreds of years), then there is no justice.

Here's what Stan said on his blog...

“First, clearly God is not "just and justifier" (Rom 3:26). The Ransom Theory and its sequels start with the premise that sin demands justice. Jesus did not satisfy that demand, so God is not just.”

The problems with this, as I pointed out to Stan are...

1. It still is a set of human traditions, no matter how many hundreds of years old it is and no matter how many humans agree with it.

2. It's a set of human traditions on a point that we can't prove objectively.

3. It presumes – in spite of any support for the presumption – that to not “atone” or make right with God in JUST the way that the humans who favor these human theories, then there God “is not just...”

The problem is: Says who? WHO SAYS that all sin – of whatever shape or size or impact, must be paid for by a human life? AND that the only “just” punishment is eternal torment with no hope for redemption or rehabilitation? It's a presumption that the claim is right, without a proof that the claim is correct.

4. The problem with this HUGE unproven presumption is that it contradicts the very notions of Justice that they say failing to heed their opinions will undermine. That is, choosing to punish someone for an eternity of torment for the typical sins of humanity... say, normal lies, minor thefts, greed, pride, etc – is disproportionate to the sin, and thus, a violation of justice.

Out of ALL these conservatives that I've talked with over the years – these who've visited my blog over the years, Stan, Neil, Glenn, Craig, Marshal... no doubt others I'm not thinking of right now... as well as those I've talked to in my real life and in places like FB – in ALL these conversations, no one has EVER dealt with this huge hole in their argument. The only path to “justice,” they argue, is to have an unjust and irrational and frankly, quite evil, punishment wildly disproportionate to the “crimes” committed.

Never an answer. Rarely even an attempt to answer it.

The closest that I've seen to an answer is them saying, “God's ways are not our ways...” But then, that begs the question of, “Well, what makes you think God's ways are YOUR ways? WHY is your human opinion about justice the “right” one to explain God's justice?"

So, there's all of that, waiting for some response. What Stan did respond to were a set of claims that I didn't make. For instance, Stan said in response to reasonable questions I raised...

The Jesus he follows condemns no one.

I never made this claim. It's not something I believe.

He points to my post on the “woman caught in adultery” as “evidence” that I've claimed Jesus condemns no one and no behavior. The problem is, that's not any claim I made in that post.

This is typical of the sort of responses I get from traditionalists of the conservative variety... straw-man attacks about things I haven't said versus dealing with the reasonable questions I did raise.

Stan did go on to allow that, “Well, Dan did say that Jesus condemned the Pharisees...” but then, that's not “no one,” is it? Further, in that post, I was speaking specifically about Jesus' harsh condemnations that are recorded in the gospels. In reality, Jesus only strongly rebukes the Pharisees and the rich oppressors in those texts. In pointing out that reality, I'm not saying that there are no other behaviors to condemn. At all. Of course, the poor man who rapes a woman or abuses a child should be condemned, as well. I'm just noting the reality that it didn't happen and get recorded in the gospels.

So, we see here another instance of a conservative reading words written in his own language and day and completely failing to understand the meaning. And I know the completely failed to understand my meaning because they were my words. I also asked Stan that, given his repeated inability to understand my words written to him today, why he has so much confidence in his understanding of ancient texts about an omniscient God's ideas?

No answer.

Stan continued by saying...

it must be clear that the God Dan follows and the Jesus Dan believes in is not the same as the mine. Why, then, would Dan be upset that I say that we are not in the same religion?

And later...

My God is defined as just (among other things) and yours is not.

My God is not “defined” as just? Says who? That's nothing I've said. I've always been abundantly clear that God is concerned about justice.

Stan continued...

Maybe it's me, following the longstanding, traditional, biblical version, or maybe it's him, with his what I would term "new and improved" version. But clearly we are not of the same faith if we do not have the same Father and the same Son to worship and obey.

Stan fails to see that it's a bit of presumption to say that because I disagree with his interpretations and traditions, that my views of God are not traditional or biblical. People have long viewed God in the ways I view God and we have often reached our opinions precisely because of the words of the Bible, not in opposition to them.

Stan's conclusion... “clearly we are not of the same faith and do not have the same Father...”

Because we disagree.

But imagine this: There's a family with a great pair of parents. Flawed, but still loving and concerned about justice especially for the poor and marginalized. One child in that family accurately says, “My parents were great. They loved us and taught us about justice and watching out for the poor and marginalized.”

The other child says, “My parents were horrible. They didn't act in a loving manner and were incredibly unjust!”

Does the second child NOT still belong to those parents and that family? Are they a different family because they one child disagrees?

Of course, this claim is not a rational or consistent one. Both children ARE part of the same family, in spite of disagreements or mistakes.

I totally get that we disagree significantly on many points. But the difference between modern (and not-so-modern) conservative evangelicals and more progressive folk is, we truly believe in Grace. That is, we don't insist that one must agree with us totally and completely – or even in part on some specific set of beliefs – in order to be a follower of God. Why? Because we don't believe that salvation or community depends upon perfect understanding of some vague and undefined set of “required” beliefs.

I can guarantee that I am wrong on some points. I don't know which ones, but I'm human and I will get things wrong. Likewise, I guarantee that all humans will get some things wrong. But we aren't saved by having perfect knowledge or perfect understanding, are we?

No Return

As most have probably heard, there is a conservative GOP Lieutenant Governor in North Carolina (Mark Robinson) who has gotten himself in some trouble for some of his antiquated and harmful views about our beloved LGBTQ fellow citizens, family, church family and friends. I don't want to repeat his harmful words, but suffice to say, they are bad. He has negative views about whole groups of people, most of whom he doesn't even know (of course) and has expressed those vulgar views and is standing by them and even doubling down on such comments, making them again in church.

In response, he has faced the consequences of his words, with people calling for him to resign (which he refuses). Instead, he goes on the attack saying that right-wing speech was being “demonized.”

He said recently, “I am tired of folks on the right being demonized for our speech,” he said, claiming that “folks on the left burn, beat, rob, loot — take over entire cities — and get a pass.”

Here's the thing: IF you are going to make vulgar, abhorrent comments - bad comments - then people will hold you accountable for your words. That isn't "demonizing" right wing free speech, it's calling clearly bad and harmful words "Bad."

We no longer allow vulgar comments about women, black folks and other minorities to be uttered publicly without repercussions. Some on the Right have to begin to recognize that you have free speech - the freedom to make vulgar, despicable language - but you will be held accountable for your vulgar words.

And holding people accountable is not an attack on the Right or on free speech. It's recognizing harmful, dangerous words for what they are.

Those on the Right (or otherwise) will just have to recognize that such speech IS vulgar and expect consequences. Get over it. You lost this "battle" and if you STILL think it's okay to make these sort of harmful comments, know that there will be consequences. Better yet, recognize the long history of abuse and harm done to our dear family and friends in the LGBTQ crowd, admit that this was wrong, and turn around and repent and get on the right side of history and decency.

And if you are a conservative who recognizes how harmful Robinson's words are, the question for you is: Will you now use this opportunity to speak up and denounce those on your side who are resorting to oppressive, vulgar language to attack fellow citizens, neighbors, friends and family?

"Communism!!" vs Communism

Stan, at the conservative Birds of the Air blog, recently posted about "Commune-ism."

In that post, he rightly notes that the early church lived in a communal manner, "sharing all things in common."

He rightly notes that the Merriam Webster definition of communism is, "a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed."

He also rightly notes that the communism of the early church was not Marxist Socialism. Of course.

And, in the final small paragraph, he rightly notes that the modern church does not look like the early church - at all - when it comes to the question of communal living.

Stan concludes with...

I would suggest that too many of us lack that "It's not about me" perspective. I would argue that we ought to be people changed from within, more concerned with the welfare of fellow believers than our own. If we are not, we have a problem, don't we?

Which is fine, as far as it goes. But it doesn't go very far, does it?

I asked Stan (in comments that won't be posted, per normal) why he didn't explore that more? Is he saying that HE, himself, is not interested in exploring it more because he doesn't have the selfless "it's not about me" perspective?

But still, I'm glad to see Stan admit that the early church literally DID embrace a communal life style (we might call it communitarianism, to help differentiate from Marxist Communism). I'm glad that he pointed out that the modern church, presumably himself included, do not even try to mimic the models left by Jesus and the early church.

But having done that, it would also be helpful if conservatives like Stan would help conservative conversations on this topic by pointing out, "So, we can SEE why communism of some sorts has an appeal to people taking Jesus and the early church and the Bible and following God seriously - it's quite biblical, at least in some form or the other..."

It would help if such people would help dispel this fear of "COMMUNISM!!" that is at the heart of so much conservatism today and help discussions about the difference between Authoritarianism and Tyranny versus Ideals of living Communally.

We can and should all be able to agree that tyranny is a bad thing, so when conservatives hear modern progressives talk about Communism, they can start with the assumption that we are not talking about tyranny. At all. Let that be a non-starter, for simple decency and honesty's sake.

And from there, they could continue to make the case why there certainly is something beautiful, holy, wonderful and biblical/Godly about the notion of living communally.

And from there, by all means, discussions about the historic difficulties of living communally (as well as the historic difficulties of living in isolation and as individuals and living capitalistically) and make the case that, in spite of the difficulties, maybe we should be following the example of Jesus and the early church more closely... trying to learn from mistakes of communities in the past and take it a step at a time, but at the same time, quit demonizing "communism" and using it as a scare word to inspire fear of their fellow citizens and in some cases, their fellow church members.

The scare words should be Tyranny and Authoritarianism (the latter of which, too often, pops up in conservative thinking), not Communism/Communitarianism, which has a wonderful, rational and biblical grounding. Maybe, when you conservatives see some crazy wild-eyed liberal 20-something in a Che tshirt talking loudly about communism, they could lead with the commendation that, "Yes, living communally, with a concern for the least of these and a desire to share things in common is a great ideal to be living for! How do we get there without the complications of any of the negative connotations of modern Marxism when it has devolved into deadly authoritarianism?"

Conversation is a great thing.