Restoring Justice, Rethinking Atonement, and Razing Hell with Sharon Baker, Part 2
In this episode, after a brief introduction by Ray and Steve, Ray concludes his interview with Sharon Baker. Beginning where they left off last time talking about the atonement, Ray and Sharon blaze through territory including a fuller picture of what “salvation” is, alternative views of hell, universalism, etc.
Both Ray and Steve wish to thank Sharon for taking so much time to share her thoughts with our audience. And we hope that you, our listeners, have enjoyed this new venture for Beyond the Box. If you have some suggestions of others that you’d like us to try to interview on this show, feel free to send them along or post them in the comments section here or on our Idea Submission page.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 1:06:40 — 61.1MB) | Embed
July 5th, 2011 at 1:59 pm
Amazing! As a Calvinist in recovery, this episode made me jump off my lawn mower and run inside to send you this: THANK YOU!! I was telling my son 2 days ago about where I am on the God Journey and he asked, “Was the death of Jesus necessary?” Man, you asked that question to help me understand and share what I’m seeing! Can’t wait to hear the 2nd part. Thanks again!
July 6th, 2011 at 6:57 am
Great shows, guys. But I had to point out one thing.
I’m not one who believes in the traditional view of hell. A couple years ago I put up a post on my blog talking about the “perpetually burning trash heap of Gehenna” (or something like that). But recently I’ve become aware that this is something of an urban legend. A couple months ago the blogosphere had several posts from different people pointing out the fact that the only evidence we have for Gehenna being a perpetually burning trash heap comes from a Jewish writer in the Middle Ages (see here, for example). Literally, that’s all we have. We know from the Old Testament that some atrocious things happened in the Valley of Hinnom (Gehenna), such as child sacrifice to Moloch, but the idea that Jesus was using a “common metaphor” of the day is ill-founded.
Not sure it makes much difference to our theology, and pretty sure it has no impact on our views of justice and atonement, but in the interest of truth, this is an argument we should avoid.
I appreciate what you guys (and the occasional gal) do!
July 6th, 2011 at 10:07 am
Hi Jeff,
Thanks so much for interrupting your mow to comment! I really appreciate that. I told my wife the other day how much more I enjoy mowing the lawn since listening to podcasts, etc. while doing it.
As to the question of “did Jesus need to die?”, I am in the middle of a shift in thinking on this one. I used to believe it was NECESSARY in the sense of God needing it. But, if God needed Jesus to die in order to forgive sin, this would mean that forgiveness was not actually free which totally undermines what forgiveness actually is. However, I still think it was necessary for Jesus to die for us. But there is a huge difference in my “why” now. I am coming to believe that it was necessary for Jesus to die in order to unravel and unveil our mistaken notions of God and sacrifice. I think Jesus absorbed OUR violence (note: not God’s violence) against Himself in order to extinguish it and bring it to light. I’m still thinking this through, so I know this sounds incomplete and lacking, but bear with me.
I believe Jesus’ “Father forgive them for they don’t know what they are doing” prayer was answered, and that it unveiled the heart of God to us. Instead of God being an angry avenger demanding “justice”, I think Jesus unveils to us a God who is a lover looking for true justice-restorative justice-seeking the restoration of humanity to God.
Let’s keep the conversation going. What do you think?
July 6th, 2011 at 12:56 pm
Steve, I just read that this morning in Francis Chan’s new book, and was surprised to see that I had bought into that urban legend. You can bet I’ll be exploring that in more detail and trying to understand more about what 1st century listeners would have heard/thought/understood when Jesus used the word “gehenna”.
Thanks for holding us accountable! Nothing more frustrating than believing an urban legend and finding out much later!! 🙂
steve 🙂
July 6th, 2011 at 1:03 pm
Interesting that this would show up in Chan’s book as well! See, he still has stuff to offer us! 😉
Believe me, I was sheepish to find that out myself! I included it in my blog post without even questioning or bothering to cite it; it was a convenient explanation, and I ran with it. Woops! 🙂
July 7th, 2011 at 11:37 am
Raborn,
Well said! My mistaken notions of God and sacrifice are just beginning to come unraveled. I have an autograhped copy of RC Sproul,’s “Saved from what?” which says, “What every human being needs to be saved from is God.” I never stopped to consider how being saved by God from God really sounded. It hurts.
I am finding that I need deliverance from my angry g-o-d and embrace the Father/Son/Spirit who have embraced me.
July 7th, 2011 at 12:44 pm
Jeff,
Wow! I think the irony in the whole thing is that we have turned Jesus’ sacrifice into exactly what His sacrifice was meant to save us from: the idea that an angry God needed to be appeased through sacrifice. To me, Jesus’ “Father forgive them” is the anti-statement of God being appeased or the “accounts being balanced”. I think Father’s forgiveness is Him canceling the debt, not requiring it from His innocent Son. Ironic that we call this justice, huh? God accomplishes “justice” by punishing His innocent Son for our guilt and sin? (Even as I write this comment I have a sense of “fear & trembling”. I know Isaiah 53 and must admit I have a hard time completely reconciling some parts of it. I have been so steeped in this theology that it is hard to lay it out on the table for examination without feeling that I could be deadly wrong. Yet, I want Jesus to define for me who God is. God is defined for us by Jesus. Jesus is not defined by our misunderstood views about God.)
August 30th, 2011 at 10:25 am
Hey guys… Wow amazing podcasts and discussion! This whole conversation about atonement and hell is amazing! I totally agree that our view of Jesus as a scapegoat is we trying to read Old Testament mores into a loving Father. And I also love the focus on removing violence from our worship, both as a threat to keep us in line and as a way of thinking about God.
My only objection to this view, and it’s not really an objection more than a comment, is about sin. I heard a lot about how God wants to remove violence from our lives, but sin for me is about much more than violence. It includes things like avarice and jealousy and gluttony and impurity that go beyond physical or emotional violence. And Jesus taking violence unto himself strikes me as part of a larger drama, involving the conquest of sin and death. As you know, the epistolary part of the New Testament has a big focus (Romans, Galatians, 1 Corinthians, etc) on law, sin, and death. And I’d love the hear more about our fallen nature and how Christ would redeem it in her view, since I think the Bible is quite clear that under the law, sin was inherited. Maybe the reason is that she’s focusing on hell right now, not atonement as such.
So, I guess the point I’m trying to get across is, the book and her views are AMAZING. The result of her viewpoint would be a much better world and a closer connection to Christ. I just have a quibble with the emphasis on violence and the way we can be better, without taking into so much account more sin in general, death, and Christ’s conquest of both. In other words, a larger meaning for Jesus’ death, and an explanation about why he really needed to DIE and be ressurected.
This ties in with my comments on your older podcast about atonement and I gotta say this whole conversation has opened new doors for me. I know Im talking a lot about this, but its really overwhelming to be able to talk about this with people so informed, yet openminded. Thanks again!
August 30th, 2011 at 10:45 am
LuisB, I really resonate with your concerns.
As much as I agree with these ideas of the atonement, boiling sin down to “violence” seems an oversimplification, or at least a drastically zoomed out view. Thinking about how personal sins often get ignored within my own view of redemption and the atonement, I recently decided to write a bit about sin and God’s work in us through Christ. Check it out if you like: http://undeception.com/sinners-in-the-hands-of-a-____-god/
September 1st, 2011 at 10:02 pm
Luis (& Steve),
I am so glad you are enjoying the dialog with us and others! The reason we are not talking as much about sin per se is that we are focusing more on God’s nature that on the human condition. The conversation with Sharon Baker revolved around understanding the atonement and hell in light of God’s nature. We have attributed catastrophic violence to God in our doctrines of both atonement and hell (in atonement God is punishing Jesus and pouring out His wrath, in hell he is simply pouring out his wrath on unbelievers) and we are trying to unravel this kind of thinking through this conversation. I don’t know of Christian ever attributing sin to God, but we have attributed horrible acts of violence to Him. This is what we are trying to clear up.
As to this:
an explanation about why he really needed to DIE and be ressurected.
I don’t know that I am still “there”. I don’t know that I am comfortable anymore in saying that Jesus “needed” to die. Rather, I think it is more appropriate to say that He needed to love and live a life of obedience to God that led to His death. I think this is also where Sharon Baker is coming from. God didn’t need Jesus to die. God could have forgiven us without any kind of sacrifice. We killed Jesus, not God. God used our greatest sin as the occasion of His greatest miracle and the greatest expression of His nature; “Father, forgive them for they know not what they do”. Jesus absorbed our sin and our violence in order to extinguish it.
Anyway, this is where I’m at with all that 🙂 Luis, Steve, does that make sense?
September 1st, 2011 at 10:11 pm
Definitely does. And I agree that the violence thing is huge, and it’s wrong to attribute it to God; what we were noticing was that it wasn’t the full picture, as you are acknowledging, too.
My own hunch is that Jesus wasn’t “sent to die” — as was pointed out in the last show, the Father is shown as surprised that His son is killed: I don’t think the death of Jesus was necessary, but that God somehow used it. The question, then, shifts to how it is that God used it or is using it. I’m not “there” on this question either, but I certainly enjoy discussing it! (I’d like to offer up Luis’s approach that he briefly discussed on my blog. Good stuff!)
September 1st, 2011 at 10:41 pm
Well thanks guys for the undeserved compliments, and I really agree with you Raborn too about Jesus death. I’m pretty sure we all agree with that concept. And I think I should have phrased my stament about Jesus needing to die more carefully. Chances are that god knew it was going to happen yet sent him anyway. Maybe he hoped Jesus did not have to die, but his death AND resurrection (which I think are really both important for this conversaton, since it is his resurrection and exaltation in the eyes of humanity, and not just his death, that proves that death can be defeated). But he knew that Jesus was extremely likely, even sure, to die. So, as Steve says, God used it as proof, the way that a serial killer’s victim can give evidence of his crime. Obviously, we don’t enjoy the victims death, but if it can stop the killer, we can’t let that death be in vain.
Again, as We’ve all emphasized, atonement deserves a lot more discussion and thought and I’m glad to discuss both mine and your thoughts on the subject. I’d love your feedback on both Steves blog posts on sin and my comment that he mentioned since I’m aware that this topic is wayyy to big for one kid from a small town. Thanks again to all of you! Hope to hear more from you soon!