Andii asks:
"I have to ask whether in our cultural situation we can actually do 'right use' on a popularly-accessible version of PSA which can be grasped in essence by, eg an intelligent 9 year old, and convey the important points in such a way as not to easily lead astray (in our cultural situation, I emphasise). I'm coming to the conclusion that we cannot."The first question for our message isn't whether it can be understood, but is it true. Is our message what the scriptures teach. If it isn't we need to go and sort that out. If it is, then we come to communication.
Peter Bolt, in The Cross from a Distance (p128):
“It is the temptation of the teacher to clarify what seems difficult. Interpreters have often sought to this by inventing illustrations of proposing analogies for Christ's work on the cross. This is a temptation, however, that should be resisted at all costs. The track record of these manufactured illustrations has nmot been a happy one; they have been sometimes obscure, often bizarre or inhumane, and usually just plain heretical. Any illustration can get into trouble simply by virtue of the fact that it requires saying God's Word in other words, entalining an automatic shift away from God's Word. Although the preacher needs to 'illustrate' the world to which the Word is addressed, the Word itself should probably be permitted to speak for itself. In addition there are some thing that should never be illustrated. As with the Trinity, given the unique nature of the cross, analogies simply do not exist. We understand the cross, not by finding soem contemporary illustration that clinches the deal, but by listening carefully to the biblical context in which it makes sense. This may leave us with some unexplained mysteries, but, even so, we shall be closer to the truth when we live with the rough edges of God's Word that when we try to impose the smooth lines of our own fancy illustrations."
I don't have to try and twist the cross to be understandable - but to explain it with care. We're sharply warned against twisting it to make it easier to hear. Doing it carefully will take time. But, with all due urgency we do have time. We can afford to lay out the story. Jesus was incarnate into the world he created and the community he created (both by his word). God spent 1800+ years (or indeed all of history before Jesus!) setting the framework in history to give us all the categories we need to understand the cross perfectly well - and indeed everything else about God. (Try the tabernacle to understand aspects of the trinity for another example.)The problem is that we often buy into a quick decisionism which needs to clinch the deal in a few soundbites. That doesn't lend itself well to telling the story of God in detail. I find Don Carson's 10 part telling of the gospel story (as outlined in his The Gagging of God) to be a compelling approach - laying out the gospel story at length rather than jumping straight to the centre of it. Paul speaks to the Galatians about how he only preached the Cross but writes like he expects they'll remember vast things about God's promises to Abraham, how and why the law was given and other subjects that the average Christian today may never learn. We need the big story.
We simply don't need to twist the cross to make it easy to understand. It isn't that difficult. And even if it were we simply need to teach the categories to understand it. And it doesn't seem to just be that 9 year old's can't get their head around it - many who are much older and better educated can't either. My experience, and I think scripture's testimony, is that it's rarely the head that struggles with the meaning of the cross. It's the heart that can't understand it. We must argue and prove the meaning of the cross (and we can), but it will take a re-creation miracle to open the heart's eyes to adore the cross. And after all, the cross is God's wisdom to shame our wisdom - it's designed to make us look stupid by giving us something so 'primitive' and simple that we can never boast our intelligence for having figured it out.
8 comments:
Thanks for this DB.
Two comments to make:
1. I think I agree with Peter Bolt's point that mysteries like the Trinity or the cross are dumbed down when squashed into "fancy illustrations", but I think he could be badly misinterpreted here. Some could, and I think do, take this kind of argument as an excuse to think that in their preaching they don't have to use illustrations or make every effort to teach as clearly as possible. I believe passionately that in preaching we must (a) be faithful to Scripture (b) recognise our congregation, so if we're speaking to 9 year olds we explain it in a way 9 year olds will understand (c) use our personality, which surely will inevitably lead to "saying God's Word in other words" (d) make every effort to be as clear as our congregation needs us to be (which may be the same as point (b)). And that's not an exhaustive list!
2. I'd like the second point to be a bigger discussion which we can look at next: how much do we need to cover in an evangelistic talk... I have lots of questions on that old conundrum. But stick to point 1 for now and I'll bring it up later!
The "Atonement for Dummies" book cover is pretty unhelpful IMO. The first thing it says to me is "if you don't share my view, then you're a) stupid; b) not very humble."
I know that's not what you say in the post ("we can never boast our intelligence for having figured it out."), but first impressions count.
not quite the point i was trying to make with it - as i understand it the 'for dummies' books are about making things easy to understand. i accept that it could be wrongly understood though as an insult, which really wasn't the point :)
Saaaam! (smile)
How long have you been in Germany now? ;o)
I have to say that Sam is right about the first impression of the 'for Dummies' book. Particularly as my words were quoted first and next to said book. I restrained myself from commenting in annoyance and peevedness because I hoped that this was mere accident rather than intended. Glad that it turned out so!
That said, maybe I should say one or two things. Yes, the first issue is about truth. The difficulty then, though, is not confusing our theories with the truth. PSA is a theory expressed using a set of metaphors drawn from human life. We need to be wary of thinking we have got it totally pegged. We are attempting to hold together things we find in scripture in as big and inclusive a picture as we can.
The thing I'm concerned about in what you write here is that you slip rather too easily between 'the Cross' and PSA as if they are synonymous. The point is that PSA is one theory (albeit holding together some major and important scriptural data) but the cross is the primary datum. We know it 'works', we are less adept at saying how. So all the stuff about twisting it needs to be carefully handled otherwise you end up unchurching those who don't find PSA the most helpful way of trying to understand the cross. See what I mean? Like that 9 year old: PSA is very unhelpful to him just now. He might find another theory or set of metaphors more helpful. But it is the cross that we are hoping that he will 'grasp', rather than necessarily a particular theory. Integrating a fuller and satisfying theory into his thinking is work for a later date.
The quick decisionism thing is helpful in this respect and I suspect right. It also fits with some of my research into conversion, so that's to the good!
Andii,
I found two things in your penultimate paragraph intriguing. Could you elaborate on some criteria for deciding whether PSA is personally "helpful" for understanding the cross? I guess I'm struggling to think through what those might be. Certainly there are explanations and illustrations of PSA that can be adjudged helpful or unhelpful but by what criteria can PSA itself be considered helpful or not?
Secondly, can we speak of the cross at all apart from interpretations of its meaning? How can we grasp the cross unless we know something (at whatever level) of what the cross meant in relation to God and ourselves? I don't think that we know that the cross "works" separable from what we are saying about what it means. Surely to grasp the "cross" is to grasp what the cross means.
And by the way when you mentioned a "fuller and satisfying theory" was that a unintentional pun? ;-)
Sorry to be so long replying (And before I forget, it may be worth referring to this post for indication of my general disposition in the matter).
'Helpful', I think I simply meant something that makes sufficient contact with the prior learning and thinking of someone such that it enables them to respond to God's grace for themselves. So for someone who has experienced a bondage in their life, the Christus Victor approach to thinking about atonement may well make contact more easily and more powerfully than others. Clearly PSA has been helpful to many. I would suggest especially to those who have a better developed sense of guilt. But if guilt isn't your presenting problem, it may be that another dimension of the cross is going to be more 'connecting'. For me it was that it was a 'gateway' to eternal life and connection with God's reality by putting to death the forces that hold us from God.
As for uninterpreted speaking; of course not; that's the important insight of post-modernity; everything human is necessarily perspectival. It is part of the Christian heritage of humility
I think, though, I would have to say that the cross 'works', despite our appreciation/manner of speaking of it (because it is the power of God for salvation that is ultimately important, not our words or ideas). It really is where God reconciles (that's one metaphor) to us. It really is where God propitiates (another metaphor). It really is where God buys back enslaved humanity from evil (another metaphor) ... but the reality is always bigger than any (or all) of the metaphors we use. Just as, ceteris paribus, water boils at 100Celsius, so God 'atones' in the cross. How we understand that is, perhaps, a bit like what theories we use to understand water boiling: physics, chemistry, fluid dynamics, psychology, cultural studies, sociology even, all have their 'takes'. Which is correct? Depends on what you want to understand about it. There is an objective reality. But there needs to be a subjective/perspectival dimension for us to appropriate the meaning and talk about it.
I don't need to understand any of the theories to boil a kettle. I don't need to understand any of the theories for the Cross to do it's work in me.... But if I do, it increases my appreciation and ability to respond.
that said, those are actually fairly 'off-the-cuff' remarks, so I'm prepared to find some of it needs modifying in the light of discussion.
And PS. Yes, 'fuller and satisfying theory' was unintentional, but I can't help wondering whether there was some subliminal 'something' at work...
Post a Comment