Rethinking "God says"

The idea that God speaks to us is found in the Bible starting in Genesis and going right on through the New Testament.  In his commentary on the book of Hebrews, Hebrews (John Knox Press, 1997), Thomas G. Long makes the point that the idea that God speaks to us is a metaphor, and he then lists quite a number of ways in which God "speaks".  As one works through the list, it seems that God speaks primarily through human experiences—experiences of prayer, worship, an inner presence, hearing stories, in theological debate, in nature, even experiences in committee meetings.

That being the case, it may be helpful to those who wrestle with traditional conceptions of God to reframe the metaphor of a speaking deity into one that focuses on spiritual experiences, that is experiences in which the Holy Spirit touches us in the deeper places of our heart and gut.  This may be particularly helpful in a culture that is inundated with heaping mounds of media generated words that we have learned not to trust.  We simply do not share the biblical understanding of the power of the spoken word, which is that spoken words are themselves actions.  We are more apt to say that a picture is worth a thousand words or to disparage speeches or even books as "just so much verbiage."  "I've heard that before," we utter in boredom and disbelief.  And we would rather a person walk the walk than talk the talk.  We say, "talk is cheap."

In our culture, on the other hand, experiences matter.  They are valued.  So, for some and maybe many it just makes more sense that God the Spirit touches us than it does that God speaks to us.

Beyond "Blood of the Lamb" Theology

The Book of Hebrews offers an extended discourse on the early Christian belief that Jesus on the cross was the ultimate and perfect sacrifice for the sins of humanity. Hebrews 9:13-14 sates, "(13) For if the blood of goats and bulls, with the sprinkling of the ashes of a heifer, sanctifies those who have been defiled so that their flesh is purified, (14) how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to worship the living God!" (NRSV)

For many in the 21st century, including some Christians at least, the doctrine of "substitutionary atonement" is off-putting for its emphasis on blood and violence and is difficult to understand even as it reflects ancient ways of thinking otherwise long fallen out of favor.  Indeed, it is cruel to take an animal, force it on an altar, and take its life in the midst of an assembly of people hoping that its death will give them salvation.  The cross was cruel, and according to modern sensibilities we cannot take glory in it or see in it God's will from the beginning of creation.  We can and do still insist that Jesus died because of our sins and even for them, but not as a sacrificial lamb slaughtered to please God's justice (as one theory of substitutionary atonement would have it).  We don't think like that anymore—thankfully not.

Let us not, however, throw the baby out with the bathwater.  While the doctrine reflects ancient religious practices long fallen out of favor among the vast majority of the world's peoples, it still was built out of important theological insights that remain important to us today.  It most especially affirms that God loves the world and not only cares about it but is impacted by its pain and suffering.  God cares.  God is involved, furthermore, in bringing healing out of the vast wellsprings of pain.  God's Spirit is working for the emergence of the Kingdom.

The death of Christ on the cross, according to Hebrews 10:11-18, furthermore, brought all other forms of sacrifice to an end.  That is, in ancient times, Christians did not participate in the bloody acts of religious sacrifice common to their day.  They believed that except for Christ the practice of sacrificing animals on altars was senseless.  In our time, we need but extend that insight to include the death of Christ as well and to affirm that in our own understanding of God's love for humanity there is no room for God sacrificing anyone on a cross.  Jesus, rather, marked a seminal moment in God's ongoing struggle with the human heart, so important for us as Christians that we see in and through Christ the deepest expression of God's love known to us.  He was for us the Son of God.  The cross was an intimate and essential element in the "Christ-event".  Without it there would have been no resurrection, which for us as Christians is the real heart of the good news of our faith.  Amen.

Tasting Enlightenment

Hebrews 6:4-5 in The Kingdom New Testament, N. T. Wright has the text state: "For once people have been enlightened—when they've tasted the heavenly gift and have had a share in the holy spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the power over the coming age—".  In the NRSV, the same text reads: "For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come."
n his translation of

While in the NRSV and other translations seem to present a list of cognate experiences that include enlightenment along with tasting "the heavenly gift" and so on, Wright renders these two verses in a way that turns them into a description of Christian enlightenment.  That is, one who is enlightened is one who has tasted the heavenly gift, the word of God, power over the coming age, and has also had a share in the Holy Spirit.  Let's stick with Wright's rendering for a moment and see where it takes us.

One thought that comes to mind immediately is that in Christianity we don't talk about "enlightenment" that much.  Our thing is salvation.  It may well be, however, that these are two words describing the same thing.  Certainly in Buddhist circles enlightenment is the path to salvation if not salvation itself.

Furthermore, whereas enlightenment is generally thought of as seeing more deeply into the true nature of reality, Hebrews changes the metaphor for enlightenment from sight to taste.  We don't see more deeply but taste more richly (sweetly?), and where enlightenment generally is a matter of looking deeply within ourselves in Hebrews 6:4-5 it is more about experiencing something outside of ourselves.  It is a gift—to mix metaphors.  Enlightenment is thus external to us.  It is received and experienced.  We may infer that enlightenment is God's gracious gift given to those who are receptive to it.  Enlightenment is not insight but, according to the impressively long list of synonyms for "taste," it can imply discernment, perception, and even knowledge—so that, in a way, seeing enlightenment and tasting it are not so very different even if the metaphors imagine different senses.

So, the key question is the source of enlightenment.  In Buddhism, it is something we gain for ourselves by looking more deeply into the nature of reality.  In Hebrews, it is a gift that allows us to discern more fully the nature of reality and especially the nature of the Giver.  God is the source and object of enlightenment.  While Christian imperialists will insist that there is "obviously" a radical difference in these two forms of enlightenment, it is not clear that they are correct.  Each, for example, sets us on a path away from self and in search of ultimate truths that reveal realities very different from what we see and taste superficially.  Each is counter-intuitive.  Each grows out of the discovery of quiet and deep reflection.  In Buddhism, enlightenment is not something to be achieved but is attained only as one puts aside such things as achievements.  So, in a sense, it comes as a gift—one that does not come from one's self after all because "self" does not even exist.

The thing that matters in the end is the search itself.  Enlightenment whether Christian or Buddhist is a precious gift.  It sets us on the path of our salvation.  Amen.