Timothy Stoner

The Gods Aren’t Angry

Posted on 17. Jun, 2009 by Tim Stoner in Emergent Theology, Essays

I took my oldest son, Jonathan, and his friend, James, to a favorite tapas bar. We were drinking sangria from large pitchers. The waitress misunderstood and brought a white, which I’d never had, but enjoyed, and when that was emptied, we concluded with a red. We were dipping warm whole grain bread into aioli and eating slices of cold tortilla (that uniquely Spanish, potato and onion omelet,–it was about 3 inches thick, garnished with sautéed peppers). We could not ignore my favorite: small skewers of grilled sausage and chicken which can only be eaten after first being folded into the most delightful cumin mayonnaise sauce imaginable. We were fortifying ourselves for a lengthy lecture which would last almost 2 hours. It’s title was “The god’s aren’t angry”. The speaker was Rob Bell, pastor of Mars Hill Church in Grand Rapids.

The lecture began promptly at 8:00pm. A large mock up of a horned altar was in center stage. The lecturer came out wearing black on black with a white belt to distinguish the northern and southern hemispheres. With little pause we were launched into an engaging explanation of how the ancients (cave women and cave men) developed their religious theories from careful observation of the natural world around and above them. The development of the idea of sacrifice was traced to the primitive desire to appease or please those mysterious and capricious supra-natural powers which dominated the lives of human beings, determining life and death. The internal logic of the sacrificial system with its emphasis on cost/benefit evolved naturally into a compulsion to sacrifice life: the most precious and costly of offerings (the most likely to curry favor).

The impetus behind this system, ultimately, of violence, was the “vicious cycle” of uncertainty (is the god pleased or displeased? Did I give enough? How much is enough?) This “vortex of anxiety” was driven by a desperate need to appease gods one could not see and could not possibly understand. This was turned upside down when God appeared to Abraham, a Sumerian man, and told him to leave his father’s house (his ancestral world view). From this point forward, instead of human life being circumscribed by the fickle desires of faceless deities, this man was the recipient of the blessing of a deity who came close and communicated personally. This man was not commanded to give gifts to this God but receive gifts from Him in order to extend blessing to other nations.

Over the next thousand years the sacrificial system was not abandoned by Abraham and his progeny–so much as–improved. This is displayed in the Levitical laws written by Moses. They govern the five types of sacrifices that the Jews, Abraham’s descendents, were to offer. One of them was a peace offering which celebrated the certain and secure shalom existing between the offeror and God. This was a great step forward from the primitive system which was governed by a terrified and persistent dread.

Bell explains that, many years later the Jewish sacrificial system had come under the control of the Sadducees who had turned it into a highly lucrative, religious enterprise. They were the leaders whom Jesus confronted and infuriated by overturning their gaming tables, scattering chips all over the temple floor and expelling them from their center of operations. Because Jesus threatened their economic wellbeing, they convinced the military to ensure their continued prosperity. Through violence the Sadducees’ violent system of religio-economic manipulation was stabilized and secured.

According to Rob, Jesus’s refusal to use violence was a calculated act of subversion. He allowed Himself to be killed, in order to overturn the violent and economically oppressive, Sadducean religious system. Through non-aggression He defeated the blood-thirsty, cruel, religious-economic- industrial complex that orchestrated His death. And through His resurrection He demonstrated that He had defeated this cruel system that relied on violent killing for its religious justification. His victory over death declared that man did not need to kill in order to appease an angry God. Man does not have to harm or hurt in order to gain God’s love. The resurrection exposed the emptiness and futility of ancient ideas of appeasement: killing to guarantee favor. It raised a banner which asked: “What is your God like? Is He cruel and mean and vindictive, demanding the suffering of the innocent, or is He merciful, kind and forgiving?

Rob asked, could it be that the traditional religious system is perpetuating these ancient myths and stimulating these age-old fears and insecurities? By changing their names, are these primal, dangerous forces still being used to manipulate: striking fear in the hearts of the worshipers to elicit fearful, guilt-driven sacrifice? These angry gods ensure that the priestly religious “complex” continue to enjoy great economic benefit.

Looking back on the death of Jesus, the early Christians believed it was much more than merely the death of a Jewish martyr. They declared that Jesus had come “at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin though the sacrifice of Himself.” Rob states that this is a declaration that in Jesus humanity had reached a “higher level of consciousness” that emptied the ancient sacrificial cultus of power and justification. In the minds of His followers, the murder of Jesus was “somehow” connected to the altar and was interpreted as a sacrifice which “somehow” did away with the primitive system of violence, fear and guilt. Their message was that in Christ God was making peace with all things in heaven and in earth. This God offered His most precious possession to make a peace which would last forever and ensure a peace that could never be broken.

The message which now is to be proclaimed to all men is that God is not a God who demands but provides. All men need to do is trust in this good God who does not require sacrifice but has actually made sacrifice and through it has guaranteed the forgiveness of all. The challenge before men is now for them to believe that this God actually can be this good. The Gospel is: “Accept the reality that you are forgiven.”

What was the purpose of the blood shed in the Old Testament? Rob states that it was not for God’s benefit but for man’s. Without the blood man was a prisoner of fear, shame and guilt, so in order to free men’s consciences from this horrible burden blood was spilled. Sacrifice allowed men to walk away feeling free, feeling forgiven, feeling cleansed. The blood was a means to release men from the paralysis of a guilty conscience.

Rituals are good, Rob concluded. They help us remember. Christ-centered rituals and structures provide healing and renewal. However, if they impose fear, guilt, anxiety it is clearly not Christ-centered. God is not a God who demands, nor imposes guilt. The only sacrifice left is for us to do good to others. And what we all need to embrace is this profound reality: “This God is not angry because this God is love.”

RESPONSE

As I’ve thought over Rob’s provocative presentation, these are some of the questions it raises for me, as well as some foundational errors, I believe, it reveals:

1.         Why begin with cavemen, not Adam and Eve?

I believe it is error to imply that the system of sacrifice was primitive man’s idea rather than God’s.

a.         After the fall God came to man, it wasn’t their idea. (Gen. 3:8-9)

b.         Adam and Eve’s attempt to cover their own shame was ineffective, so  God, in a hard and painful grace, killed animals and provided them with skins as a means of covering their nakedness: guilt and shame. (3:21)

c.         According to the biblical story, sacrifice was God’s idea not man’s and it was established by God in a context of love.

d.         By putting these animals to death Himself God made it clear that this was an acceptable, though terrible, act by which the result of man’s dreadful action could find covering. Lesson: sin requires death.

e.         Whether man perverted a system God initiated or, over time, twisted an inner (God-given) sacrificial impetus, the Bible makes clear that God took it over in order to maintain and establish a just and holy mercy.

So what:

It turns man’s attention away from God, upward, to himself, inward.

It makes the hero of the story man seeking God not God rescuing man, or worse, if sacrifice was God’s idea, it makes Him out to be the villain.

It robs God of His glory as the One who initiates redemption, instead making Him out to be One who follows after man and makes do with what He finds.

It trivializes the system of sacrifice and by association demeans the crucifixion of Jesus.

 2.         Why imply that the sacrificial system is inherently defective?

I believe it is error to state that the sacrificial system is based on fear and that it only provided a psychological benefit to man.

a.         The impetus behind the sacrificial system established by God was not law (fear): “do this to try to gain my approval”, but grace (confidence): “I will provide so that man can enjoy my favor.”

b.         An unmerited, sovereign, Covenant of Grace (Love) with Abraham  precedes sacrifice, it does not earn it. (Gen. 12:1-3; 15:9-11)

c.         God established the sacrificial system primarily to “make atonement for sins committed” and to assure forgiveness (10 X in Lev. 4-6)

d.         These sacrifices were not able to clear the conscience of the worshipers, (Heb. 9:9; 10:1-2) they only make them “outwardly clean” (9:13)

e.         Only the blood of Jesus can cleanse our conscience from guilt (9:14).

f.          The death of animals provided temporary, external purification, while the  bloody death of Jesus provided complete, internal purification: it set  free “those who are called” (9:15), did away with or took away sins (9:26, 36), and perfected forever “those who are being made holy” (10:10, 14).

So what:

It tarnishes the entire Jewish sacrificial system, implying that it was exclusively based on fear and insecurity, not love and devotion.

It undermines the sovereign love of God, by turning sacrifice into a human means to obtain love rather than as a celebration of love freely given.

It belittles the profound moral and spiritual effect of sacrifice as a means for atonement making it out to be merely a psychological ploy to relieve guilt feelings.

It ignores the necessity of the blood of Jesus as the only means of dealing with our guilty consciences.

3.         On what basis can it be established that the violence implicit in the sacrificial system renders it evil or immoral?

I believe it is error to imply that because sacrifice is violent it is evil.

a.         When man attempted to change the law of bloody sacrifice and instead offered non-violent fruits of the field, God was displeased. (Gen. 4:2f)

b.         Without death (blood) covenants are ineffective (Heb. 9:16-19) and  without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness (Heb. 9:22).

c.         Since God sanctioned the killing of rebel nations “destroy them totally” (Dt. 7:1-2) and took the lives of “every living thing by flood” (Gen. 7:21), it is biblically indefensible to argue that violent killing is, per se, evil.

d.         The bloody sacrificial system (foreshadowing the perfect Lamb who would offer Himself for sinners) did please God (8 X in Lev. 1-3)

e.         The shedding of blood of an innocent victim, while a terrible thing, is not necessarily immoral where it is a part of a system based equally on a holyjustice (sins require punishment) and a holy love (forgiveness of sin is a virtue, but can only occur if justice is maintained).

So What:

It distorts spiritual reality by implying that violence is antithetical to Christianity.

It misleads by creating a false cosmology of peace, where battle and all warlike imperatives and metaphors are excluded.

It misleads and ultimately unarms by elevating the passive over the aggressive and removing any realization of spiritual warfare.

It blunts the heinous consequences of sin and God’s profound hatred of it.

4.         If God told Abraham to leave the evil, Sumerian, fear-based, sacrificial system why not abolish sacrifice entirely?

I believe it is error to imply that the God of Abraham desired to do away with sacrifice since He is a God who provides not demands.

a.         When God made His covenant of blessing with Abraham He required the death of a heifer, a goat, a ram, a dove and a pigeon. (Gen. 15:9)  

b.         God blessed Abraham but the covenant was conditioned on obedience: “You must keep the covenant, you and your descendants after you.” And the sign of that covenant obedience the bloody removal of  the foreskin of Jewish males. (Gen. 17:9-14)

c.         The God of Abraham did not do away with sacrifice since Abraham and his children continued to regularly offer sacrifice.

d.         The Ten Commandments which regulate the life of Abraham’s children begin with a demand: exclusive worship (Dt.5:1-20) and love (6:5)

e.         The Torah is replete with instructions, demands, laws, statutes and expectations about what God requires from man (including Leviticus which details a host of sacrifices which God demands from His people).

 So What;

It contradicts the biblical story which depicts God as initiating, ordering, directing and then using sacrifice as the essential means for forgiveness, reconciliation and restoration.

It distorts the story by obscuring the character of God as Sovereign but Loving King who issues commands and is to be loved, feared and obeyed,

It demeans the idea of obedience, duty and obligation as something primitive, harmful or immature.

It weakens commitment to a long, painful obedience out of humble submission and devotion.

It turns the focus self-ward, from service to God and man, to being served; from what I can give to what can I can get.

 5.         Why fail to explain that God was the one who filled the pages of the Torah with detailed instructions and specific demands regarding offerings?

I believe it is error to imply that the Torah’s regulations were human improvements on a primitive system.

a.         Moses was instructed by God to set up the Tabernacle (a center devoted to sacrifice) (Ex. 25:40) It is a sanctuary that is a copy of what is in heaven. (Heb. 8:5). The idea of sacrifice originated in heaven not earth–  sacrifice was God’s idea not man’s.

b.         While fallen man’s religion is an attempt to devise a scheme to please a mysterious, capricious deity, God reveals Himself to man as Holy, Just    and Good and provides a way to ensure a relationship of love and peace.

c.         Rather than eliminating violence God institutionalized it and imposed a perpetual cycle of slaughter which ensured that rivers of innocent animal blood would flow from the altar.

d.         The Jewish sacrificial laws are not improvements on pagan ideas, the pagan system is a perversion of God’s ideas and God’s commands.

So What:

It inverts the true impetus for salvation: instead of God making a way for man to be reconciled with Him it is about man seeking to find a way to God.

It ignores the necessity of death and vicarious suffering to resolve man’s sin problem.

It minimizes the true nature and deadly consequence of sin by making sacrifice only about man’s attempts to appease capricious gods.

It obscures the spiritual significance of and connection between the death of animals and the death of the Messiah as a sacrificial lamb.

 6.         Why state that the Sadducees were the only Jewish leaders who opposed, and were opposed by, Jesus?

I believe it is error to state that Jesus was killed by the Sadducees because He threatened their economic privilege.

a.         Jesus was not murdered by angry businessmen alone (”the religious, industrial complex”) but by all the Jewish leaders acting in concert with the common people, along with the political authorities.

b.         Behind the killing of Jesus was not politics or economics but hatred provoked by His exposure of darkness (pride, selfishness, deceit,  cowardice, hypocrisy, greed) hidden in every human heart. (Jn. 3:19-20)

c.         Jesus was not a revolutionary fighting against economic injustice, He came to defeat the Main Enemy: the Satanic-infested-religio-cultural-complex, to destroy Satan and free men from spiritual not economic oppression. (Heb. 2:14,15; Lk. 4:18)–man’s biggest problem is sin not poverty.

d.         Jesus was almost murdered by the crowds who became enraged when He demeaned their arrogant nationalism (Lk. 4:28) and later, by the “Jews who had believed in Him” for His purportedly blasphemous assertion that He was God ( Jn. 8:31,58-59). Eventually He was hated by all.

So What:

It reduces the death of Jesus to a political or economic murder instead of a sacrifice in which the whole nation (and thus the whole world) conspired.

It obscures the reality that what compelled the death of Jesus was not greed or lust for power by the minority elites but sin lurking in every human heart.

It narrows the locus of evil to the powerful and exonerates the weak who were also willing accomplices.

It ignores the primary battleground (principalities and powers) and the primary enemy (sin, Satan and the demonic realm)

 7.         Why minimize the relationship between the death of Jesus and man’s sin and the absolute moral necessity for His death?

I believe it is error to state that Jesus died for the purpose of subverting a violent, fear and guilt-based sacrificial system.

a..        The passivity of Jesus was not a political statement. He was dying as a  Lamb for man’s sin not as a Martyr for a non-violent agenda.

b.         St. John tells us that the mission of Jesus was to be a “the sacrifice that takes away our sins.” (I Jn. 2:2; 4:17 - KJV “propitiation”)

c.         When Jesus appears the first thing His herald declares is: “Look, there  is the lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world.” (Jn. 1:29)

d.         The non-violent death of Jesus was premised on its inherent nature as a voluntary sacrifice, offered to God, by the perfect and obedient Son:  “for our infirmities”, “our sorrows”, “our transgressions”, “our iniquities”,  “to make His life a guilt offering”, in order to “justify many” (Is. 53:4-12)   it had nothing to do with a pacifistic-politics of subversion.

e.         Fear of God and guilt for sin are not banished by the death of Jesus. We  are to work out our salvation with fear and trembling (Php. 2:12) and  whereas guilt over sin is good (Rom. 2:15; “godly sorrow”- II Cor.7:10), an absence of guilt is a sign of entrenched evil, not maturity (I Tim. 4:2).  Not all guilt is immoral.

So What:

It distorts the focus of the suffering of Jesus away from the internal: sin, guilt and condemnation toward the external: politics.

It reduces man’s problem to primarily economic, political, or social it is only about this world, not the new creation.

It elevates man’s temporal external needs and minimizes his eternal, spiritual needs.

It ignores the courageous violence of Jesus in His pitched battle with the powers.

It obscures the nature of the death of Jesus as voluntary and substitutionary.

It minimizes the ongoing necessity and spiritual sanity of a continuous reverence of God and an ongoing, inner recognition of the badness of sin.

 8.         Why fail to explain the necessity of Jesus’s death and God’s role in it?

I believe it is error to imply that only humans were behind the death of Jesus.

a.         The death of Jesus was not a shocking, unexpected tragedy, it was planned from eternity (I Pet. 1:20; Rev. 5:6), foretold and foreshadowed for millenia (Is. 53) and then orchestrated by God the Father.

(”This man was put into your power by the deliberate intention and foreknowledge of God.” Acts 2:23)

(” Neither you nor your leaders had any idea what you were really doing;   this was the way God carried out what He had foretold when He said through all His prophets that His Christ would suffer.” Act. 3:17-18)

b.         God is the One who established immutable laws of justice which require death of the one who sins. (Gen. 2:17; Rom. 6:23). Thus, the death of Jesus was necessary for God to be both merciful and just. (Rom. 3:25-26)

c.         Far from rejecting sacrifice as inherently evil, God the Father used it as the crucial means of fulfilling His covenant to Abraham: blessing the nations.

d.         The death of Jesus was first and foremost the idea and plan of the loving Father. (”God presented Him”- Rom. 3:25; God sent His own Son-8:3; God made Him to be sin-I Cor. 5:21; God sent His Son to redeem-Gal.4:4; The Father sent His Son to be the Savior of the world. (I Jn. 4:14-15)

So What?

It distorts the death of Jesus as being primarily about man rather than God the Father.

It makes Jesus out to be a helpless victim not a Victorious King.

It obscures the sacrificial nature of and the willing obedience behind the death of Jesus.

It hides the core issues of justice and righteousness integral to the Cross of Jesus.

It empties the death of Jesus of any reference sin and offense against a holy God.

It makes nonsense of the claims of His followers that it was a sacrifice, an atonement, a ransom, a payment, which resulted in forgiveness of and redemption from sin.

It trivializes the crucifixion as a human tragedy rather than the cosmic centerpoint for the redemption, reconciliation and restoration of man and the entire creation.

 9.         Why create an antithesis between anger and love, as if anger is incompatible with love, and judgment is contrary to the character of a loving God?

I believe it is error to state God is not angry and demands nothing from man because He is love.

a.         Behind the idea or necessity of sacrifice is not the anger of a cruel, capricious deity, but a jealous God who burns with a fierce and holy love for His people who will be destroyed by sin. (Det. 4:23-24; 6:15)

b.         God is angry but His anger is not like that of man or pagan gods, His  anger is just, perfect, sinless, purposeful, steady and consistent, it does not fluctuate capriciously, or blaze erratically, it is a resolute and fierce opposition to all that is evil. (Rom. 1:18)

c.         The Cross did not do away with God’s hatred of sin, demand for obedience,  and wrath on those who reject the Son. (Jn. 3:17-18, 36)

d.         The Cross did not guarantee forgiveness of every single person in the world, but only of those who trust in Christ (Rom. 1:16; 3:22,26;  10:4) or who “call” on Him (Rom. 10:13).

“Whoever believes in Him has eternal life”: will not perish, is not condemned, will not thirst, streams of living water will flow from him,  will live, will never die, will not stay in darkness. (12 X in John’s Gospel)

e.         The Gospel is not “believe you are forgiven” but, if you “believe Jesus is  the Christ–the Son of God” you can be “born of God” (I Jn. 5:1,5). Jesus is the propitiation not only for Jews but for all those in the world who believe (I Jn. 2:2; Jn. 1:12)

“This is the testimony: God has give us eternal life, and this life is in His    Son. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. (I Jn. 5:11-12)

So What?

It creates a false antithesis between anger and love.

It empties God of emotions which are essential for perfect justice and righteousness.

It does away with all moral justification for final judgment and the punishment of the implacably rebellious and those who refuse to trust in the Son.

It confuses the biblical story which depicts God as blazing with wrath and hating sin as well as those who refuse to submit to His rule.

It placates those who wish to live without referent to God’s commands.

It renders faith in Christ irrelevant, unnecessary or at best, optional. 
It wrongly guarantees forgiveness regardless of repentance, belief, or obedience.

 A teacher, and much more a prophet, is called to strengthen, encourage and comfort those who listen. More, when he speaks he must “sound a clear call” or else the audience will be confused and unprepared (I Cor. 14:3,8) When a teaching raises more questions than answers and, worse, confuses, obscures or hides truth, then one is justified in asking, is the teacher fulfilling his calling? And when it does not counter the prevailing cultural assumptions and errors, but rather floats amiably along with the current, and at crucial points reinforces the spirit of the age, then it is time to sound an alarm.

St. Paul’s rhetorical style was to humbly rely on the weakness and foolishness of the cross, and place no confidence on eloquence or persuasive words. (I Cor. 2:1-4). He “boasted” in the simple Gospel preached in the power of the Spirit, not in cleverness, or “human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power”. (I Cor. 1:17). How rare is this note of humble confidence in the simplicity of the message of Christ crucified, an unavoidable offense to the religious and utter foolishness to the intellectual. (1:23)

 As I’ve pondered the difference between Rob’s teaching and the orthodox faith, it takes me back to the tapas bar. After all, as someone once said, all roads lead to the bar. I would describe the difference as that between Mountain Dew and sangria. Both are sweet, but the similarities end there. The soda is bubbly, perky and trendy and gives you this synthetic jolt, while the other is richly textured, combining the aged resilience of wine with the tang of fresh fruit, and it tends to soothe. The former, like a wanton mistress excites with her surprises and unexpected shocks, the other, like a wife, or mother, gentles and sings as she strokes you to sleep on her lap. While the soda is good for a one night stand, the wine is good for life. The pleasure of the one is tingly and evanescent, the other’s delight lasts and only improves with time.

So. . . here is to the delicious, full-bodied pleasure and hearty, aromatic delight of a full-throated and unembarrassed orthodoxy!

Tags: anger, atonement, cross, emergent theology, justification, rob bell, sacrifice, salvation, violence