One of my fondest seminary professors, Sean McDonough, posed this question in his classes on the Gospels: “Are the miracles really supernatural?” In answering this question he drew upon the insights of Jürgen Moltmann who asserts: “Jesus’ healings are not supernatural miracles in a natural world. They are the only truly ‘natural’ thing in a world that is unnatural, demonized, and wounded.”[1]
[1] The Way of Jesus Christ (London: SCM, 1990), p.69.
At some point in their lives, most Americans have been asked, “Is Jesus your savior?” Though the American Jesus has stripped the historical Jesus of many things (deity, Trinity, truth-telling), the notion that he is a savior still remains in the general consciousness of our nation. Most people that lay any claim to Jesus do so in favor of his morality not his deity.
However, Jesus does not offer us different versions for different desires–human or divine, moral guide or righteous God, healer or comforter. Jesus unequivocally claimed to be God and to be a savior. He is not a choose-your-own-adventure savior. Remember those books? You got to choose the ending by picking a page number for a different scenario. With Jesus we don’t get topick what he is and what he isnt. He is who he is, all or nothing, take him or leave him. To pick and choose is to end up with no Jesus at all, a fictional Christ, made in our own image.
The domestication or nationalization of Jesus has been to embolden Jesus to rise up and overthrow his Father as the dominant person of the Trinity. Separating Jesus from the distant grand-Father, many have chosen to emphasize Jesus’ humanity. He saves us from sickness, from pain, from hurt, from depression, from loneliness, but not from our sin. He is a healer not a sin-confronter, a comforter not a heart-changer.
Interestingly, the Bible does not reserve the title of “Savior” for Jesus alone. It is used repeatedly in the Old testament and New to refer to God the Father. Separating Jesus from God the Father is not an act that Jesus would approve of. In fact, he longed for communion with his Father while he walked the earth.
Long before Jesus was on the planet, God the Father was savior. He was savior to Israel, rescuing them from slavery, oppression, and despair in Egypt. Then from exile, first with the Assyrians then with the Babylonians. Israel wanted God as provider but not as king. A choose-your-adventure approach to God got Israel into crisis.
Inevitably, Israel would cry out to God from exile, recognizing the soul-wrenching pain of separation from God. And God’s mercy got them out. God the Father is savior both spiritual and physical, restoring Israel into his love and rescuing them from deplorable conditions of slavery and exile.
Jesus is a savior in cooperation with, not distinction from the Father. The Father desires that none would perish and so sent Jesus as the mediator of salvation. Yes, we are hurt, broken and in need of comfort. However, these things are the product of personal sin—our own or someone else’s against us.
Jesus came to reconcile us to God, not displace him. His loving sacrifice for sin—an ancient electric chair—was not an accident. It was for you and me, to bring us into his heart-changing, world-renewing agenda. To redeem the creation project he started with the Father and to magnify their creativity, mercy, love and power in making this the best of all possible worlds. The Jesus we would choose is vastly inferior to the Jesus who is.
This time of year Christians often redouble their spiritual efforts in resolve to be more holy. Some will think about or even venture to join an accountability group. Originally appearing in the Journal of Biblical Counseling, this article seeks to correct misguided approaches to accountability, deconstructing legalism and cheap peace, while advocating a gospel-centered, God-honoring approach to accountable relationships. An excerpt:
Put ten bucks in the jar to keep from sinning.
When I recall some of the popular discipleship disciplines I advocated in college, I shudder. Did I really think that they were biblical or even helpful? When one of my disciples caved into a particular sin he was “being held accountable for,” he had to put ten bucks in the jar. Sounds awfully close to an indulgence doesn’t it? Yet, in
our aim to promote “holiness,” ten bucks was the penalty for pandering to sin. We thought this approach to accountability was especially good for fighting sexual sin. If one of the guys I discipled had a particularly lustful week, (viewing inappropriate TV, reading pornographic material, or masturbating), he had to “pay the price.”When we met for our weekly accountability meeting, I would ask a range of questions designed to promote accountability, but as I recall, we only assigned sexual sins the steep penalty of ten dollars. “Other sins” were considered less grievous. Sometimes the accumulated cash was put in the offering, other times it was used to celebrate “not sinning” over dinner. Somehow, this practice was supposed to motivate holy living, but instead, it fostered a legalism that undercut a more biblical approach to fighting sin.
A friend recently called my attention to Michael Dowd, an evangelist of “evolution theology.” Dowd is a former preacher who left pastoral ministry to spread the gospel of evolution theology. His primary point is fine enough, marriage and science are not irreconcilable. In fact his scientific research and clear stance on the old age of the earth are refreshing. Where did the Bible ever say just how old the earth is or that such a question is important or essential to faith?
Dowd takes a more positive, all-embracing stance claiming that “the marriage of religion and science can profoundly improve your life and the world.” There is much in science that can and should be integrated with theology. However, Dowd goes beyond the integration of science and scripture to the reinterpretation of scripture from the viewpoint of evolution.
In his book, Thank God for Evolution, (free pdf of book) Dowd writes:
I cannot agree that “Jesus as God’s way, truth, and life” means that only those Christians who believe certain
things about Jesus or the Bible get to go to a special otherworldly place called heaven when they die. I used to believe that, but I don’t anymore. In hindsight, I see that my old belief cheapened, belittled, and impoverished the universal glory of the Gospel. What Jesus’ life and ministry were actually about is far larger and more meaningful, and offers more this-world relevance, than my old clannish, contracted “we win, you lose” understanding. More, one need not be a Christian, nor ever have read the Bible, in order to walk what is, effectively, the same path we Christians aspire to—the same “one way”to a realized, redemptive life of fulfillment and service in this world, here and now, while simultaneously blessing future generations.
To be sure, Jesus did not teach a “we win, you lose” mentality. Instead, he taught us to love God and neighbor, rendered possible not just through his example, but through receiving new hearts to love by faith in his sacrifice for our failure to love God and neighbor. An essential claim of Christ is that the man and the world are broken because of sin, rebellion against God. Jesus seeks to redeem humanity and the world through his death and world-renewing return. However, he does not minimize his own sacrifice or teachings as optional. They are essential and joy-giving to those who embrace him.
The problem with Dowd is that he applies an evolutionary hermeneutic to Jesus’ teachings. Dowd claims that we must not interpret Jesus words as he intended them (a great disrespect and distortion to any teacher/author), but with a scientific and evolutionary lens: “If my interpretation of Jesus as “the way, the truth, and he life” of God is the same as that of peoples living hundreds or thousands of years ago, I miss the magnitude and magnificence of what God has publicly revealed through science and cultural evolution in the intervening centuries.”
If I were to apply the same hermeneutic to Dowd and say that what he really meant was that “evolutionary theology” affirms the historic claims of the Church and of Scripture, that salvation is by faith alone through Christ alone, and that evolution is only tenable if it affirms God as Creator and maker of man in his unique image, Dowd would be terribly upset. But I do not disrespect him in that way. Instead, I honor his intention and present his doctrine as he states it. Dowd could at least do the same for Jesus.
