George MacDonald: Truth is too good to believe

Posted on November 30, 2010 by me

George MacDonald (who greatly influenced C.S. Lewis) opposed what is referred to as the “penal substitution” theory of the atonement, something with which I’ve struggled myself. This common evangelical doctrine depicts God as so full of wrath that he just has to punish someone for sin, so he takes it out on Jesus. This view, I believe, derives mainly from Augustine’s view of original sin and the total depravity of man (not to mention Augustine’s view of a primarily wrathful God).  This view was rather unique to Augustine at the time; while it was eventually adopted by the Roman Catholic Church as well as Calvin, the Eastern church has always disagreed with penal substitution.

One aspect of this issue is the tension between God as wrathful judge and God as merciful father. MacDonald argues that God is not in conflict with himself, full of wrath one day and merciful the next. Rather, there is no contradiction between mercy and judgment, when understood properly. If God is merciful, he must always be merciful, even when punishing and forgiving sin. God’s forgiveness and mercy, it seems, is simply too good to be true.

In discussing this issue, MacDonald wrote:

Truth is indeed too good for men to believe; they must dilute it before they can take it; they must dilute it before they dare give it. They must make it less true before they can believe it enough to get any good of it…Unable to believe in the forgivingness of their father in heaven, they invented a way to be forgiven that should not demand of him so much; which might make it right for him to forgive; which should save them from having to believe downright in the tenderness of his fatherheart, for that they found impossible.

I am still up in the air on the issue of penal substitutionary atonement—I don’t currently understand enough of the nuances of various theories to form a solid opinion. However, I do lean toward what is known as the Christus Victor theory, the view held by the Orthodox as well as folks like N.T. Wright, Gregory Boyd and hinted at by Martin Luther. Christus victor simply means “Christ the victor,” taking the position that Christ’s death was not punishment for sin, but victory over sin.

In any event, I do agree with MacDonald that the truth of God’s great forgiveness indeed seems too good to be true.

For more on MacDonald’s thoughts, visit Richard Beck’s post at Experimental Theology.

Posted in The Gospel Uncensored, Theological Musings | Tagged , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Advent Sunday, Anglican style

Posted on November 28, 2010 by me

From the 1662 Book of Common Prayer:

Almighty God,
give us grace that we may cast away the works of darkness,
and put upon us the armour of light,
now in the time of this mortal life
in which thy Son Jesus Christ came to visit us in great humility;
that in the last day,
when he shall come again in his glorious majesty
to judge both the quick and the dead,
we may rise to the life immortal;
through him who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Ghost,
one God, now and for ever. Amen.

That about sums it up.

Thanks to John H, who always has some interesting things to say.

Posted in Spiritual stuff, The Liturgy | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Ironic repentance vs. the real deal

Posted on November 15, 2010 by me

There are people in every church I’ve been in who need to be set free.

This is not to say that some of these churches didn’t preach grace. But sometimes, it just takes a while for grace to seep in to where change needs to happen. Grace on the surface is one thing; grace in our innermost being is life-changing.

Much of Christianity teaches that we “miss the mark.” This is true, of course. However, much of Christianity forgets to teach that Jesus has hit the mark for us.  So, rather than hearing that we have succeeded in Christ, we only hear that we have failed and that we need to do more, and try harder. Once this concept is fully rooted in someone’s thinking, it may stay with them for years, in spite of their gaining an intellectual understanding of grace.

I suspect that some people first join these graceless, “miss-the-mark” churches because they already know that they don’t hit the mark, so they fit right in. They are given some guidelines that may help them hit the mark, sometimes, and they are promised that someday they will either make the mark in Heaven, or perhaps that the mark will simply be removed. And, being beat up every week for continually missing the mark helps assuage their guilt.

That’s the only reason I can think of to explain why people actually convert to a works-oriented form of Christianity. This parody of Christianity functions something like a 12-step group: The first step is admitting you are a sinner, and realizing that you will always be a sinner. The best you can hope for is God helping you to sin just a little bit less, or perhaps it’s enough just to know you’re surrounded by people who feel as lousy as you do.

This kind of graceless thinking gets into your core, because in your core you’re already feeling like crap. It simply confirms that what you have believed about yourself is really true. Here’s the irony about converting to a legalistic version of Christianity: In some ways, because you aren’t changing how you feel about things in your core, you don’t really have to repent all that much.

To accept salvation by grace takes real repentance. What you need to repent from is the thinking that your performance actually matters, in a spiritual sense. Yes, you’re a sinner, and if you ever think you can keep God’s law, it will condemn you. Now, get over it.

What you need to repent (turn) to is the truth that Jesus performed on our behalf; he kept the law, and more than that, he conquered death (the consequences of sinning). Think of the law as a video game (only with life or death consequences): Jesus has beaten all of the levels. In essence, the game is over. And not only that, the consequences for losing the game has been removed. You are now free to play the game (just make sure you log on under Jesus’ name).

The truth about repentance

Repentance (in a soteriological sense) has never been about changing your behavior; no behavior-mod program can save you. Repentance is about changing your core beliefs. For most of us, repentance is like peeling an onion; it happens layer by layer. With the discovery of each new layer of self-reliance, more repentance needs to take place. The good news is that it’s all by grace, the great onion-peeler.

So be free—because that’s why we’ve been set free.

Posted in The Gospel Uncensored | Tagged , , , , , | 3 Comments

Review: Waiting for Superman

Posted on November 9, 2010 by me

This past weekend I went to see Waiting for Superman, the documentary about the failing American public school system. Knowing that the director also did Al Gore’s movie, I was fully prepared to by irritated by gaps in logic and the misuse of data. However, I have to say that I was quite impressed.

The Participant Guide to the movie, available at bookstores (including Costco), contains a number of assertions that are unfounded or poorly argued. However, the movie avoids making many of these assertions, sticking pretty close to the experiences of those children, parents and educators featured in the movie.

The movie makes two central claims: First, the school system is broken, and it’s not that the failure of children to learn is a symptom of the community they are in, but that the failing school system is contributing to the downfall of the community.  For the children they follow in the movie, this seems the case. They want to learn, they have high aspirations, and they have parents or others in their lives who care enough to fight for them.

The second claim is that “we know what works.” From the studies of successful programs, people have found that a school needs good teachers, more class time, and accountability. The movie focuses on the “good teachers” aspect the most, and I would agree with them that a system that makes it impossible to get rid of totally inadequate teachers is a problem. As for longer class time, I’m not so sure – homeschooled kids spend less time “in school” than their public school friends, and do as well or better in their SATs, etc.  As for accountability, the movie didn’t begin to explain how to do this. No Child Left Behind made this a goal, but all they’ve done is mess up the system worse with factory-inspired metrics that really tell us very little.

Good points made in the movie include that our top students don’t compare well with other developed nations (except that we rule in attitude), that some charter schools are quite successful, that too much overlapping and often conflicting regulation exists, and that teachers unions keep failing teachers in place.

There are, however, a couple of significant problems with the film.  For one, while they mention (once, perhaps) that they focused on some successful charter schools in urban areas, they failed to point out that there are charter schools which are dismal failures. Why are some charter schools achieving lower results than their standard counterparts?

They also didn’t deal at all with any area other than places like LA or Harlem. If our schools nationwide are failing (which they implied), are there any different issues in suburban or rural areas? And, do some children succeed in failing schools? Why?

The biggest flaw in the movie was that it focused on 5 children who had parents or guardians who placed a high value on education and were motivated to get their kids into college. They did not deal at all with the larger issue of parents who simply don’t care, who won’t even bother to show up for parent-teacher conferences or who won’t even return a teacher’s phone calls.  I found it remarkable that in an area with failing schools and only a handful of openings into these wonderful charter schools, only a relatively small number of people were trying to get in.  Sure, there were 5 students participating in lotteries for every spot; but there are thousands of children in these areas. Where were they?  Would a charter school benefit a child whose mother is too hung over or stoned to bring the child to school?

Overall, I still think Waiting for Superman was a good movie. Undoubtedly, there are system failures.  However, it would seem that there are problems that go beyond the school system, and it is a grave mistake to presume that the school system is the only problem. I also think it would be a terrible mistake to think that Federal controls are the answer; even district-wide standardization can ignore the issues existing in some neighborhoods. We must discard the factory mentality when it comes to education; neither children nor teachers belong on assembly lines.

The real answer, it would seem (as in any meaningful endeavor), is people who care. And, of course, money made available to people who care.

Posted in Politics/Current Events, Reviews | Tagged , , , , , , | 1 Comment