.png)
Hello peeps! I'm guessing you were expecting something a lil different from this post today, but! If I can't (or don't) go on random philosophical/theological rants on my blog at unexpected times, am I really Samanthawise Gamgee? Um, *cough*, I mean Samantha Benedict?
So here's the situation.
I was reading a book recommended by Joy Clarkson (who interviewed the author on her podcast), called The Wood Between The Worlds (by Brian Zahnd), on the crucifixion. It basically explores a different view/perspective on the crucifixion in each chapter--the author says he means it to be like a kaleidescope. Which I think is really cool!
The author is the pastor of a protestant church, so I was expecting to have some disagreement points with him, and up until this specific point in the book, I had a few small ones, but he has a very Catholic sense of aesthetics, and almost sacramentality, in a way (I mean, he's talking about crucifixes for all love) so I was expecting views to mostly align.
Until I get to the chapter on how Jesus views His crucifixion, at which point we get this absolute doozy of a quote:
"Jesus understands the cross to be the place from which the satan is cast out and the world exorcized. The satanic is probably best understood as an enormously complex spiritual-psychic phenomenon of accusation leading to organizing violence. More than a metaphor but less than a person, the satan is the phenomenon of accusation and violence that rules the world but is almost never perceived for what it is because the god of this world has blinded our minds."*blinks*
You guys, I don't even know where to start.
I didn't think I'd be spending my day defending the reality of the devil against another Christian's assertion that the devil is "just" a spiritual-psychic phenomenon, but here we are.
It just gets better, because look at this quote, too:
"The shed blood of Abel had a voice, one that invoked a curse upon his brother Cain. Bearing his curse, the first murdered departed from the presence of the Lord and founded the first city. Now the pattern for the rise of empire through the bloody conquest of our brothers had been established...the spiral of ever-increasing violence unleashed by Cain continued."
Okay, let's summarize.
Brian Zahnd thinks that
-The devil (Satan, if you will) isn't real, but rather is a spiritual-psychic phenomenon
-Moreover, that the main end of this phenomenon is violence (specifically, organized violence)
-Human civilization is rotten at its core
-(Implied) Violence was the original sin
Um.
Yeah.
No, sir, I would have to disagree. There is...so much wrong with this. Even after that list, I'm not sure where to start! Shall we go item by item?
The devil (Satan, if you will) isn't real, but rather is a spiritual-psychic phenomenon
Explain to me, dear sir, if the devil isn't real, where this spirtual-psychic phenomenon of accusation and evil came from? Because it certainly didn't come from God. And if it didn't come from God and didn't come from another force external to humanity, then it must have come from humanity itself. And if humanity itself created the evil that Jesus came to exorcise from the world ("now the ruler of this world will be driven out") then how on earth is Jesus supposed to free us from it? Wouldn't we just create it all over again? There has to be some sort of external force (external to humanity, that is, and yet still in God's creation) that Jesus frees us from (in addition to reforming our fallen humanity) and which is the force which corrupted us and turned us from God in the first place.
Also...I'm sorry, but I'm very confused as to how Mr. Zahnd would explain the passage in Genesis about the Fall. I know that it's not meant to be a historical document, but rather poetry, but even so, it's clear that there is some sort of external force tempting Eve--that she would not have thought of disobeying God all on her own. And it can't be a "spiritual-psychic phenomenon" because before the fall of humanity, there is no one fallen for such a phenomenon to exist in (spiritual-psychic phenomena don't just float around in the ether) unless one allows the existence of the devil.
"But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not die; for God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” --Genesis 3:4-5
Moreover, that the main end of this phenomenon is violence (specifically, organized violence)
We'll come back to this under item #4, but first here I'd like to say...saying that the main goal of Satan (or "the satan", if we're using Zahnd's terms) is violence is rather problematic, even if seen simply in terms of the utter demonization of violence.
If violence is the worst sin, then how do we make allowance for self defense? For just war theory, which has been kicking around in the theology of the Church for quite a while? And in fact, Zahnd condemns just war theory later in the book. If there is no such thing as a just war, is a country just supposed to lie down and let whoever is attacking it take over?
And I can just hear Zahnd-- "Jesus said to turn the other cheek!"
Yes, but when He was struck on the cheek during His passion...
"When he had said this, one of the police standing nearby struck Jesus on the face, saying, “Is that how you answer the high priest?” Jesus answered, “If I have spoken wrongly, testify to the wrong. But if I have spoken rightly, why do you strike me?” --John 18:22-23
Okay, Mr. Zahnd, what, as Christians, are we supposed to do then? Go live in the woods? But if we founded any sort of commune, that would be evil too, wouldn't it? If we lived in any sort of community or town, doesn't that recall the city that Cain founded? I will grant him the assertion that it is evil to found a city on the blood of innocents, but good golly are we to say that every civilization is thus evil? Or even that a civilization founded on the blood of innocents (which, granted, most are) can't become a good empire later?
I think, though, the main problem with this is that it takes the individual sins of the people involved, and puts them on the civilization. Basically, if anyone involved in the founding of an empire is bad, or sins in any way (specifically violently), the whole empire/organization is evil.
Which. Um. I'm pretty sure there will never be an empire or organization that doesn't have some evil person in its lineage, and is it fair the extend the guilt of that person to the guilt of the entire nation? Does that absolve the individual of his guilt? I would argue no. (Even if there is some amount of guilt on other people for assenting to the evil.)
"So when Pilate saw that he could do nothing, but rather that a riot was beginning, he took some water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying, “I am innocent of this man’s blood; see to it yourselves.” Then the people as a whole answered, “His blood be on us and on our children!” So he released Barabbas for them; and after flogging Jesus, he handed him over to be crucified." --Matthew 27:24-26
(Implied) Violence was the original sin
I know that at this point you might be saying "Sam, maybe you're taking the guy out of context? Maybe he doesn't think that violence is the original sin?"
But no, I don't think so. If that's the case, explain why he spends several chapters talking about violence and pacifism and doesn't talk about pride even once? If it comes to that, why does he talk about Cain and Abel multiple times, and completely ignore the fall of Adam and Eve?
He seems to have overlooked, many things, but first of all that the first fall in the world wasn't the fall of man, but rather the fall of the devil, the first "non serviam" ("I will not serve") of Satan.
The seventy returned with joy, saying, “Lord, in your name even the demons submit to us!” He said to them, “I watched Satan fall from heaven like a flash of lightning. See, I have given you authority to tread on snakes and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy; and nothing will hurt you. Nevertheless, do not rejoice at this, that the spirits submit to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven.” --Luke 10:17-20 (emphasis mine)
"But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not die; for God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”" --Genesis 3:4-5 (emphasis mine)
"So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate." --Genesis 3:6 (emphasis mine)
These three factors in Eve's fall have been traditionally identified as "lust of the flesh", "lust of the eyes", and "pride of life", helped along by 1 John 2:16:
“For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.” --1 John 2:16
Interpretations can vary, but basically:
-Lust of the flesh has to do with the desire for food, pleasure, and comforts
-Lust of the eyes has to do with envy, covetousness, and the desire for status
-Pride of life has to do with the desire for power, and also the general pride that leads us to think of ourselves more highly than others or even God
So, from the initial fall and temptation from pride come all other sins (and, notably, violence would probably fall under "pride of life"--the lust for power).
Why is this important? Why am I emphasizing this so much?
Because if we ignore the role pride has in our lives, it's incredibly hard to fully root out other sinfulness. If we blame violence for being the Original Sin, we miss the deadliest of the deadly sins--the pride that says "non serviam"--no, I will not serve, or as Milton's Satan has in Paradise Lost "Better to reign in hell than serve in heaven".
I am not a violent person (and I pray I will never become one) but even if I was a violent person, in a sense it would be better (easier to repent from) to be prone to violence with humility, than to be prone to pride as a pacifist. Because pride makes it incredibly hard to admit mistakes, to give one's self grace, even to serve God and to align one's will with His. Violence wounds ourselves and others, but at least it's obvious. Pride is the insidious sin that one can harbor almost without knowing it, while doing all the right things externally, and even while judging those who engage in violence--or lust or any of the "obvious" sins. And in fact, if one is judging those people, that's a sign that one might have a pride problem in one's life. Perhaps even more fundamentally and succinctly: violence has bad consequences, but pride can lead to violence. If we don't address the pride problem, the violence problem will continue to exist--as will all the other sins that can (and do) stem from pride.
I'm preaching to myself here, just to be clear--pride is probably the biggest sin I'm going to struggle with, possibly for the rest of my life. It's gonna be rough.
And any theology of the cross that doesn't emphasize or even mention Jesus's great humility in going to the cross, the way that in this way He confounds the pride of the world, is not going to be satisfactory to me, because only in the conquest of pride will the ruler of this world truly be cast out.
Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus,
who, though he was in the form of God,
did not regard equality with God
as something to be exploited,
but emptied himself,
taking the form of a slave,
being born in human likeness.
And being found in human form,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to the point of death—
even death on a cross. --Philippians 2:5-8
And on that note...have an excellent weekend! ;)
Comments
Post a Comment
Hi! I'm so glad you are here and taking the time to comment. I love all comments, even ones on old posts! I just ask that you are respectful and keep the comments section clean. Thank you!