This is the second in a series posts reflecting on C. Baxter Kruger's book Jesus and the Undoing of Adam
"Repent and believe" is where I began the last post. Have you noticed that the New Testament is filled with references about repenting but that it is about having eyes to see what people did not see - a radical reorientation of their thinking. I sometimes refer to the "Duh-ciples" because they seem to not get the obvious. But then, I am one of the duh-est of them too.
Theological repentance is a rare bird. Most discussions about theology are focused on "defending the faith" and "remaining rooted in the faith handed down." There is much to learn and to hold firm to about our faith but if the New Testament teaches us anything it is about the mental baggage that blinds us to reality - the reality that God changes things up.
There is the wisdom of Jesus that it is not wise to put new wine in old wine skins. There is the story in Acts 10 about Peter being shown that his traditional Jewish understanding of kosher (what is unclean to eat) is in the way of what God is doing. There are enough examples to suggest God must like change but we seem to forget that easily and worry when someone thinks outside our theological box.
My personal theological repentance was in process but I think it turned a corner when the film The Passion of Christ came out several years ago. I saw some previews and saw the intentional emphasis on the degree of cruelty of the crucifixion and I chose to not attend the film. A theological conversion began to become clear within my soul.
My choice was not to avoid the blood and guts of the film (I've seen worse). Something within me said, "This is a mis-perception of what it was all about." If you saw it you will recall that it was designed to reinforce a common theology (and assumed to be the only right one) that God was punishing his son in the extreme to show the degree of punishment human kind deserved - that is the infliction of extreme pain and suffering satisfied what the Father needed to forgive us for our sins.
I can hear you saying, "Yes, and your point is?"
That was the theology I was taught from birth and was equipped to defend as truth. But, now I saw it as a perception to be examined because it just might be mental baggage that blocked me from seeing truth hiding in plain sight. Was the cross cruel? Absolutely. Was its primary purpose to inflict great, insufferable pain? No, not really. The Romans used it primarily as a means of humiliation on the way to death. It was the ultimate exposure and humiliation - hung high and powerless over bodily movement and functions. Cruel? Certainly but not primarily one of maximum pain. They had many other ways to extend painful suffering.
But if it was not about suffering in proportion to the sins we have done as humankind, what was it all about. Here's another way to ask the old, old question: Why did Jesus die?
Enough stretching today. Google the phrase "theories of atonement" and see how many different ones have been popular over the church's history. Why do you think there is more than one?
Nest: More stretching of my perceptions leading to repentance.
