INADEQUACY OF THE SACRIFICIAL PARADIGM FOR SALVATION?

OPENING COMMENTS

Paradigm = a philosophical or theoretical framework or model.

I’m not sure this material will be incorporated into the final version of Through The Wilderness. I base my hesitation on two factors:

(1) Through The Wilderness focuses on posing appropriate questions to obtain useful answers. I haven’t yet defined a question that will generate an answer within the context of this book. Questions and answers relating to the sacrificial/substitutional paradigm carry great importance to me as a professing and struggling Judeo-Christian, irrespective of inclusion in, or exclusion from, Through The Wilderness.

The situation reminds me of a statement (paraphrased) from one of our notable authors/critics of the 20th Century: I don’t know what I think on that subject because I haven’t written about it. (One of these days I’ll find a reference to identify the lady who made this statement.) Perhaps my writing about the sacrificial paradigm or model will generate a question and answer I can incorporate into Through The Wilderness. As usual, I not only solicit but welcome comments and critiques.

(2) Many potential readers of Through The Wilderness quite likely will have severe reservations about, if not outright hostility to, this material that erroneously could be considered to strike at the traditional core of Judeo-Christianity.

I want people to read Through The Wilderness. Conservative and especially fundamentalist religious reviewers could generate negative reviews based upon this published material, which might scare off potential readers of the book. I’m not averse to participating in, or even starting, controversies based upon differing informed opinions; therefore, I may include this material under appropriate circumstances. I wouldn’t want to refrain from incorporating legitimate material solely to preserve readership.

I must note that reservations about the sacrificial, substitutional, or atonement model for salvation began in the early days of Judeo-Christianity and have continued to this time. Again, we may ask, What’s new under the sun? Nevertheless, I have never heard a sermon preached on any model for salvation other than this one, albeit sometimes with the invocation of God’s love. Perhaps I’ve been in the wrong churches?

THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS

Which of the following expressions most adequately explains how or why God forgives our sins, thereby leading to our salvation?

(1) The forgiveness of our sins is mediated through the sacrificial life and death of Jesus Christ, the exemplification of Jesus Christ’s great love for us and for God?

(2) The forgiveness of our sins is mediated through the great love Jesus Christ has for us and for God, as exemplified by Jesus Christ’s sacrificial life and death.

To my mind, these two statements offer profoundly different understandings. The first places the weight of forgiveness on the sacrificial life and death of Jesus Christ whereas the second emphasizes the love Jesus Christ has for us and for God as responsible for the forgiveness of our sins. That is, statement (1) more closely corresponds to the traditional sacrificial model for salvation.

SACRIFICIAL MODEL FOR SALVATION

The epistles of St. Paul (C.E. 3 – 62) and those attributed to him perhaps furnish the most extensive rationale for the sacrificial model of salvation:

Romans 3:25 whom (i.e., Jesus Christ) God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his (i.e., Jesus Christ’s) blood.

Romans 5:8-9 God proves his love for us in that while we were still sinners Christ died for us. Much more surely then, now that we have been justified by his blood, will we be saved through him from the wrath of God.

The sacrificial model can be summarized as follows:

(1) God is both just and merciful.

(2) Our Hebrew ancestors believed animal, including human, life force resides in blood.

(3) The Hebrew Scriptures link the forgiveness of sins with sacrifices to be performed by human sinners.

(4) Although sin offends God’s honor beyond human ability to compensate, God’s justice requires that blood with its life force must be spilled on the altar as compensation for sin. That is, God or God's sense of justice must be appeased in order for humans to escape the consequences of God’s judgment.

(5) Christ’s death (spilling of his blood) on the cross provides a one-time substitution or replacement for blood sacrifices.

(6) The sacrificial and compensatory death of the completely innocent (without sin) Jesus Christ, God’s beloved son, was demanded because only an integrated fully human and fully divine being could repay or atone for the infinite debt of all human sins.

(7) This sacrificial substitution or atonement brings humans and God’s creation back into the perfect unity destroyed by the original sin of Adam and Eve, and reestablishes the mutual loving relationship between God and humans.

RESERVATIONS ABOUT THE SACRIFICIAL MODEL

My first reservations about the sacrificial substitution model probably began in Prof. Franz Joseph Kovar’s Philosophy 101 class during my senior year at LaGrange College. This class was required of all pre-ministerial students at the college. I took the course because of interest and to broaden my horizons beyond a double major in Biology and Chemistry. Although I would have graduated with an additional major in Mathematics had I taken Differential Equations instead of Philosophy 101, the later was, in retrospect, the single most valuable course I studied at LaGrange College.

Prof. Kovar remarked in one class, I do not understand why Christ had to undergo the sacrifice on the cross in order for God to forgive us our sins. Does this cruel sacrifice truly reflect the God of love we are called upon to worship?

Of course this statement infuriated most of the pre-ministerial students. The comment was not a surprise because Prof. Kovar made this declaration each year. Several of the pre-ministerial students, as if on cue, stood up. One announced, We will pray for you, Prof. Kovar, that you might receive the blessing of salvation through the sacrificial blood of Jesus Christ.

Prof. Kovar replied, Pray for yourselves. Praying for others substitutes your arrogance for God’s wisdom.

My next formal discontent with the sacrificial model came when I facilitated an extraordinary Sunday School class at New Horizon United Methodist Church in South Florida. We used the Seasons of the Spirit lectionary-based material for the class. One Easter, the lesson commentary pointed out: Christ had free will and could have refused to die on the cross. If so, God would have continued to forgive sins as God has done throughout human history. Well, that statement was as mind blowing as Prof. Kovar’s declaration.

So, what are my reservations?

(1) My concept of God precludes some grand cosmic plan through which Christ was pre-ordained to come to earth at some future time in order to save us from our sins.

Such a plan would imply that God is both all-powerful (omnipotent) and all-knowing (omniscient), able to see and control events before they happen. To this point, let us consider a human circumstance or condition that could result in only two outcomes, A or B. If God already knows the outcome will be A, then God cannot choose B and, therefore, God cannot be, or chooses not to be, all-powerful. To expand, if God is all powerful and is free to choose either A or B, he cannot foresee the future or he would loose the power to choose. This idea requires considerable thought but is not new with me because it dates back to some of the early Church fathers.

(2) God forgave sins prior to the appearance of Jesus Christ on earth. The Hebrew Scriptures are replete with this fact.

(3) Hebrew Scriptures consistently point out that regret, repentance, and the desire henceforth to lead a better, if not sin-free life, must come before any sacrifice: The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit. A broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise. (Psalm51:17, for instance).

(4) Many Hebrew prophets and Jesus Christ himself inveighed heavily against the Jerusalem Temple, with its Sanhedrin elites, maintaining a monopoly on forgiveness of sins in conjunction with a corrupt sacrificial system.

(5) Once King Solomon completed the Jerusalem Temple, God commanded that it would be the only sanctioned site for Israelites to offer animal sacrifices. Performing sacrifices in any other place was a sin. The Romans destroyed the Temple in 70 CE; therefore, Jews to this day offer no more animal sacrifices because to do so would violate God’s prohibition. Accordingly and importantly, Jews believe they receive forgiveness of sins without the requirement of an animal sacrifice and the shedding of innocent blood with its life force. That is, prayer and repentance take the place of sacrifices in Judaism: Take with you words, and turn to the Lord. Say to Him, forgive all iniquity and receive us graciously, so we will offer the words of our lips instead of calves. (Hosea 14:3, for instance).

As an aside, I wonder if the modern day Jews will reestablish animal sacrifice when the Jerusalem Temple is rebuilt on the reclaimed Temple Mount presently occupied by Muslims?

(6) St. Paul himself offers models for salvation in addition to atonement through sacrificial death, including: (a) Ransoming or taking the place of a slave, debtor, or captive; (b) The Incarnation that unites humans and God; and (c) The entire life of Jesus.

Although I have tried to be a faithful and active member of the United Methodist Church since 1960, many of my theologian friends consider me a closet Presbyterian, the faith tradition in which I was raised. I must point out, therefore, that Anselm of Canterbury, generally recognized for his expansion of St. Paul’s sacrificial model, apparently did not emphasize the idea that Christ substitutes of bears the penalty for human sin. Martin Luther and John Calvin promulgated the penal substitution concept some centuries after Anselm. How such an idea ever caught on and became so widespread in its acceptance flummoxes me, and illustrates that not even agreement by the majority of Christians guarantees the correctness or validity of a theological concept.

(7) The sacrificial model promotes violence as sanctified by God and encourages us to submit to violence and suffering in imitation of Christ. (See Mel Gibson’s The Passion Of the Christ).

(8) How can we defend, much less worship, a just, loving, and merciful God who decreed that human sins could not be forgiven except through the condemnation and suffering of the righteous and innocent Jesus Christ? If God had the power to otherwise forgive sin and did not do so, how can we defend God’s wisdom and justice? To insist upon and hew to the sacrificial model means that a cruel and wicked despot pre-ordained innocent suffering and death to be the entire purpose of the Incarnation.

With the above reservations in mind, I totally reject any pleas or threats that I should abandon my God-given intellect and simply accept the traditional sacrificial model because it involves a divine mystery beyond human comprehension. This type of faith truly would be blind.

I think one of St. Augustine’s great dicta applies here, as suitably rephrased to avoid gender-specific language: If persons believe that Holy Scripture contradicts what they observe with their own eyes (i.e., through rationality and intellect), then those persons do not understand what Holy Scripture actually says.

WHY AND HOW DOES GOD FORGIVE SINS?

The Why appears straightforward: God, out of divine love for his creatures, desires reconciliation between himself and us for the estrangement arising from our inappropriate use of free will, i.e. our sins.

The issue of why God bestowed free will upon us has little relevance to the present discussion. Suffice it to say that we have free will as a result of our human condition. If we do not have free will because God pre-ordained and controls all aspects of human endeavors, then we cannot be guilty of sin and would not need salvation. I cover this point in Through The Wilderness.

Perhaps God organized creation in such a way that we humans have free will and, as a compensation for that blessings/responsibility, God also out of love offers us what we Methodists often term Prevenient Grace - after John Wesley.

The How constitutes a thornier issue, which would not be so difficult if the sacrificial model actually applied. Consideration of the How forces us to face squarely our concept of Jesus Christ and his role in our salvation.

I defy anyone to state an unequivocal explanation of Jesus Christ. Starting with, Jesus Christ is the (only) Son of God, won’t work because that statement comes loaded with ambiguity. For instance, how can a divine being give birth to human being? Postulating a construct based upon the Holy Spirit and the idea that Jesus Christ represents a Man-God (fully human and fully divine) contains even more ambiguity.

The fact that we are saved appears clear on the basis of rational faith informed by Holy Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience. (OK, as at least a titular Methodist, I couldn’t resist the opportunity to bring in the Wesleyan Quadrilateral.) However, the relationship between the suffering and sacrificial death of Jesus Christ and our salvation remains imprecise, even elusive.

Despite the imprecision, I offer the following approach for how God forgives our sins, keeping in mind that I am by no means commanding God what to do but commenting only what I think God does:

(1) Our loving God desires harmony and reconciliation with us, as stated above for the Why of forgiveness.

(2) Having given us the blessings and responsibility of free will while knowing full well that we will sin and become mired in estrangement, God lovingly offers us forgiveness in order to reestablish the harmony of creation, something we cannot accomplish through our own efforts.

(3) While God must be considered righteous and just, the absolute sovereign ruler of all that exists, seen and unseen, has no obligation to demand a blood sacrifice to satisfy divine justice. God, out of love, offers mercy and love to trump harsh justice, punishment, and recompense.

(4) Jesus Christ, through his life and death, shows us how we should live and die in complete obedience to, and in harmony with, God.

(5) Through his life of complete obedience, Jesus Christ inevitably was led to sacrifice in his daily life and on the cross. One aspect of this sacrifice was eschewing the allure of sin available to him by virtue of free will. All of us experience this sacrifice when we do not succumb to temptation and refrain from indulging in desirable evil. Anyone, human or divine-human, who lives in complete obedience to and harmony with God likely will end up on a cross. This end becomes virtually certain when the obedience, like Christ’s, leads to a direct challenge of a major political power and rebellion against the established order.

(6) Sacrifice, even a substitutional or compensatory spilling of blood, does not bring forgiveness of sins. Regret, repentance, and a desire for the alteration of a sin-filled life constitute necessary prerequisites for forgiveness. Sacrifice, therefore, becomes a sign of the sinner’s repentance and forgiveness, not the cause of the forgiveness.

(7) We must comprehend the Incarnation and the suffering life and death of Jesus Christ from two integrated perspectives: (a) God’s mercy and boundless love for creation, and (b) God’s justice as the divine will and power to restore creation and human roles in it.

I do not insist on a complete understanding of how our sins are forgiven, and I will accept some imprecision based upon presently restricted human knowledge. An example from science illustrates my point: For decades we knew through experience that aspirin has many beneficial medicinal properties; however, the mechanism by which this pharmaceutical agent exerted its effect was unknown and only speculated. Not until research in the 1970's led to the Nobel Prize for Sir John Vane did we understand most of the mechanism. Nevertheless, aspirin worked quite well during the period of our ignorance.

The above paradigm for forgiveness and salvation works for me and constitutes a basis for further reflection and exploration. Hey, I’m saved through the grace of God regardless of my paradigm.

THROUGH THE WILDERNESS: CHAPTER 2

HUMAN FREE WILL: A GREAT GIFT OR AN ILLUSION?

For I know the plans I have for you," declares the LORD, "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future”. Jeremiah 29:11

Holy Scripture presents two apparently contradictory and competing visions about how humans function within God’s created order – as the beneficiaries of free will versus vassals of predetermination (1):

I call heaven and earth to witness against you today that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Choose life---Deuteronomy 30:19

For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn within a large family. And those whom he predestined he also called; and those whom he called he also justified; and those whom he justified he also glorified. Romans 8:29-30

Holy Scripture contains many verses that appear to support determinism or predestination, the doctrine that God decided from the beginning about everything that will happen, especially who goes to heaven or hell, and that humans can do nothing to change the course of events. God, through continuously executed prearranged purposes, meticulously controls what will happen to each person and nation. In essence, God must have the characteristics of an infinitely powerful computer capable of coordinating and integrating all events.

In keeping with their implicit, if not explicit, acceptance of predestination, sincere Judeo-Christians often express their faith with affirmations such as “If God closes a door, he will open a window;” “We didn’t pray hard enough, so God didn’t give us what we asked for;” and God has a plan for me.” These types of expressions reflect an underlying trust that our all-powerful (omnipotent), all-knowing (omniscient), and everywhere present (omnipresent) God “sees” time - past, present, and future – as a unified whole or continuum in order to exert control at all levels of creation. We may, therefore, legitimately ask if humans actually possess the ability to act as free and autonomous beings? Put another way, do God’s designs preclude human free will, which at best could be only an illusion?

Reading “between the lines” reveals free will as a constant theme that runs throughout Holy Scripture: God tells us what is expected and says what will happen as consequences of our actions; but, divine edicts do not force us to select obedience or disobedience, good or evil. At our beginning, God permitted Adam and Eve the option, even when tempted by the Serpent, to eat or not to eat fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Similarly, God told the Israelites to choose life or death, blessings or curses, with respect to obeying the Ten Commandments. Later Jesus firmly proclaimed what God wants us to do (Love the Lord our God with all our hearts, souls, and minds. And---love our neighbors as ourselves.). Yet, no evidence shows that we are coerced onto this specific pathway. God did not form us as mindless automatons but implanted the capacity for free will within our genetic makeup. I confidently make this last statement with full awareness of the continuing controversy over the relative importance of heredity versus environment (nature versus nurture) and the contention of some scientists that the codes in our DNA predetermine not only who we are but also what we think and how we act.

Many theological treatises and discussions have attempted to reconcile the two concepts of predetermination and free will, including the proposition that human and cosmic realms are separate. That is, we may have free will on some aspects of our existence so that we may, of our own volition, brush or not brush our teeth today whereas we cannot affect cosmic phenomena or God’s original judgment as to which individuals were pre-selected or “elected” to receive salvation.

Judeo-Christians with expertise in physics postulate that the statistical uncertainty embedded in Quantum Mechanics might produce a reconciliation or synthesis between free will and determinism. I prefer a simpler approach, to cut through the discourses that mask the real issue: If we do not have free will, we cannot make choices because all is predetermined; if all is predetermined, we have no accountability; without accountability, we have no guilt for our sins; in the absence of guilt, we do not need the saving grace of Jesus Christ; and, hence, the entire structure of Judeo-Christianity collapses.

To my mind, an additional simplifying consideration argues for human free will: Suppose an individual human being faces a decision about future actions limited to only two choices, A or B. If God has the ability to foresee the future and already knows the individual will choose A, then God cannot be all powerful because God cannot direct the individual to make choice B. The only way God can be all powerful (or, at least extremely powerful) requires that the human must have unrestricted free will to choose A or B. This line of reasoning argues that God cannot be (or, chooses not to be) both all powerful and all knowing with the ability to foresee the future.(2) Accordingly, we can rationally infer that God embedded human free will into creation.

I believe God created and maintains the cosmos and all therein according to principles that, as our knowledge and understanding develop, we define as scientific laws. These laws apply not only to the “hard” or mathematically based sciences such as physics but also to biology, which is becoming increasingly and appropriately mathematical. I can resonate with calling these laws, “God’s Design or Plan”. I firmly reject, however, any notion that God violates the gift of human free will with a “program” that spells out in precise detail how I will react in every situation and, further, specifies my ultimate fate through foreknowledge and predestination.

Some Judeo-Christians experience traumatic insecurity when their belief that God directs all human activities is challenged. I cannot contemplate worshiping a tyrannical, loveless, and merciless deity who fashioned me without free will. At best this deity would be indifferent to human affairs, much like the Creator envisioned by the Deists (3). Rather than anxiety-provoking, I find the preeminence of free will liberating, albeit sobering. In summary, I think free will must be an integral component of God’s plan or predetermined design. That is, God designed and created humans from the beginning with the capacity for free will.

The above comments will neither resolve the differing views on predetermination versus free will nor do they offer an explicit way to reconcile the two perspectives. While I come down squarely in support of free will, reframing the question might possibly yield answers that will enable us to move forward together: Living our lives in accordance with which concept, predetermination or free will, better allows us to be co-creators with God?

If all in the cosmos is preordained, we have no obligation to work or co-create with God because we cannot influence events. We may then logically withdraw and, in effect, tell God: “Hey don’t bother me, everything is your responsibility.” If humans have free will, we can be co-creators with God by our own choosing. What role would the Community of Believers have in our co-creative endeavors? Teaching and helping us to make truly informed choices that will bring the Kingdom of God to fruition here on earth.

The struggle for worldwide domination between Fascism and the Western Democracies illustrates the economic and political implications arising from the contrasting views of free will and determinism. Some people believe this confrontation is, or inevitably will evolve into, a war between civilizations.

Fascism refers to an ideology that rejects ideas such as freedom and individual rights. Fascists advocate the elimination of elections, legislatures, and other elements of democracy. Under Fascism, the state or religious authorities direct and attempt to control all human activities through central planning and, if necessary, harsh application of force to implement the government’s dictates. Heretofore, Nazi Germany under Adolph Hitler and Italy under Benito Mussolini best exemplified Fascism. Socialism and Communism can be regarded as offshoots of Fascism because of their similar commitment to central planning at the expense of a free market.

Today, Islamofascism represents an extreme manifestation of this repressive anti-modern ideology. Islamofascists come from a perverted branch of Islamic fundamentalism, consider themselves the moral guardians and saviors of their societies, and profoundly mistrust all notions of human progress as contrary to Allah’s divine action and intervention in the world. All nations must fulfill the will of Allah, which only Islamofascists possess the qualifications to interpret. Islamofascists intend to use all means possible, even violence and military conquest, to form a one-world government under Islamic authority.

Democracy and capitalism foundationally incorporate and rest upon principles derived from the doctrine of free will. In these systems, humans have the right to make choices, hopefully informed ones, and must live with the outcomes of those decisions. Neither democracy nor capitalism can exist without freedom of choice. Although some persons contend that many Western Democracies have been “tainted” by socialism, I argue that these societies, especially the democratic republic of the United States of America, provide the best current examples of free will in the political and economic spheres. The US Constitution can be easily viewed as a document producing a political system designed to ensure that the will of the majority is carried out through fair elections (4). As in the moral and theological arenas, participants in democratic and capitalistic societies have the right and responsibility to exert their free will, sometimes with beneficial outcomes and sometimes with less than desirable results. Nevertheless, free will rather than coercion drives the process.


(1) Although theologians and philosophers can sometimes usefully distinguish between determinism, predetermination, predestination, pre-ordination, pre-selection, and pre-election, I will use the terms more or less interchangeably. As a bottom line, these terms relate to the idea that, at the beginning of creation and perhaps before this mighty act, God specified all future events, including who would receive salvation, and the ultimate fate of the cosmos. Thus, God has a macro design for the cosmos and micro plans for each individual. In each case, no matter what humans do, the divine design and plans will be carried out.

(2) Greg Easterbrook in Beside Still Waters, pp. 160 – 187, gives an elegant exposition of this concept, and how God appears to grand and majestic, even infinite but is not all powerful.

(3) Reference to preceding Chapter.

(4) As presented in Chapter X, a major task of the Community of Believers in a democratic republic focuses on bringing the majority of citizens into that Community through proclaiming, professing to, witnessing to, and serving the risen Christ so that the free will of the electoral process produces a government and society completely consistent with the precepts of the Kingdom of God.

THROUGH THE WILDERNESS: INTRODUCTION

The LORD went in front of them in a pillar of cloud by day, to lead them along the way, and in a pillar of fire by night, to give them light, so that they might travel by day and by night. Neither the pillar of cloud by day nor the pillar of fire by night left its place in front of the people. Exodus13:21-22

For many people, modern society has become much like the wilderness through which the Hebrews traveled during their Exodus journey from Egypt to the Promised Land of Israel. Wilderness in this ancient context referred to a disorderly and dangerous place where demons existed beyond the limits of human settlement and government control. Similarly, the original English meaning of wilderness was a terrifying wasteland where travelers became confused and disoriented. The Hebrews stayed on the correct path by following God-directed pillars of smoke and fire.

The competing interests, differing claims on our religious and political affiliations, and rapid technological advances of our present society often bewilder and perplex us. Our modern wilderness journeys require that we follow valid directional signs, our own symbolic pillars of cloud and fire. We must go forward with the same clear headedness, courage, and trust as the Hebrews, once they understood what God expected of them. In this way, we can exhibit a remarkable Judeo-Christian characteristic: We are at our best when times are at their worst.

I define myself as a Judeo-Christian on the basis of the following profession: (a) God, first known as Yahweh to the ancient Hebrews, created and rules all that exists, seen and unseen; (b) Jesus Christ, Son of God, lived and died sacrificially because of his great love for God and for us, a love through which the forgiveness of our sins is mediated; and (c) The Holy Spirit, the active presence of God in our lives, transmits all truth from God to humans.

I cannot logically profess Jesus Christ as Son of God without a prior belief in God as creator and sovereign of the cosmos, a statement of faith that established the foundation of Judaism. This declaration about the identity and function of God, therefore, makes me a theological Jew and, by extension, a Judeo-Christian (1) in order to acknowledge, honor, and respect the fertile religious ground out of which Christianity grew.

A constant feature of human existence from our beginning relates to the persistence of the questions we have asked coupled with the transitory nature of the answers we have developed. Each generation must work out appropriate and sometimes different answers to the same questions. We should always ask questions and always question answers: God not only tolerates our questions but also expects us to find answers to them so that we may follow pillars of cloud and smoke specific for our generation.

This search for life-affirming and sometimes life-changing answers within our own times resembles climbing a rope. To go up, climbers must hold onto the rope with one hand and both feet while letting go with the other hand as it reaches upward. When climbers pull themselves up with their higher hands, they must momentarily release their other hands and feet from the rope. Maximum danger of falling exists at this moment. Security cannot be reestablished until both hands and both feet again grasp and wrap around the rope. Then, of course, the process must be repeated, if we are to reach the goal. Searching for answers to primary questions means we must hold securely to relevant knowledge from the past while letting go of what does not benefit us in our generation.

Through The Wilderness attempts to provide insights into obtaining answers to fundamental questions dividing and causing animosity within the Community of Believers in Jesus Christ. This division comes about because we frequently frame our questions improperly: The nature of the questions we ask determines the answers we receive. For instance, asking Is abortion equivalent to murder or simply the legitimate outcome of a woman’s reproductive freedom? does not yield pragmatically helpful answers. Focusing exclusively on Who created all that exists, seen and unseen? precludes any profound exploration and understanding of how creation came to be, that is, the mechanism by which God created and maintains the cosmos in all its parts.

Judeo-Christians who are neither professional theologians nor trained scientists, but who have open minds about theology and science, make up the target audience for Through The Wilderness. I hope some theologians and scientists will find this book interesting and useful; however, I have purposefully tried to minimize the “jargon” associated with these disciplines. This book presupposes at least a familiarity with the principles of the Judeo-Christian faith and the concepts embedded within the Community of Believers. Accordingly, I do not flatter myself by assuming any non-Judeo-Christians readers will be converted to the faith.

Through The Wilderness should not be viewed as scholarly work. The text is not extensively footnoted with references to the work of other authors, although the Bibliography contains a list of books I have found helpful in my faith journey. Additionally, any reader wishing more information to support what I have written or who desires to discuss the thoughts expressed in Through The Wilderness may contact me through this blog or at mfrosolono@austin.rr.com

(1) Actually, I would prefer Hebrew-Christian rather than Judeo-Christian but Judeo- occupies a prominent place in our language. I am aware that some commentators attempt to distinguish among Hebrew, Israelite, and Jew, and even believe Jew resulted from an erroneous translation of early New Testament documents. For the purposes of simplicity, I have used Hebrew(s) and Jew(s) essentially interchangeably because the terms probably convey basically the same meaning to most people expected to read this book. Israelite, derived from the descendents of Abraham through the progeny of Israel (Jacob), can be included under both Hebrew and Jew. Israeli applies to a citizen of the State of Israel.

THROUGH THE WILDERNESS: CHAPTER 1

HOLY SCRIPTURE: INSPIRED AND ALWAYS FACTUAL?

The grass withers, the flower fades; but the word of our God will stand forever. Isaiah 40:8 (NRSV)

Can Holy Scripture be inspired through the Holy Spirit without depicting reality in every respect, including all branches of physical, biological, and social sciences? For instance, what significance should we attribute to the Genesis accounts of creation when cosmological, evolutionary, and geological data argue for a much longer and more detailed picture of how the universe and life originated under God’s direction? The answer to this question of inspiration linked to scientific discoveries and theories (1) determines in large part how we view and apply Holy Scripture within our technologically based society.

Biblical Inerrancy means that Holy Scripture delivers God’s true, infallible, trustworthy, and authoritative revelation to humans. Because our perfect God cannot make mistakes or lie, the revelation of the Holy Spirit, even if filtered through human limitations, can only produce Biblical Inerrancy. Accordingly, Holy Scripture must exist totally without error.

Hebrew (Old Testament) and Christian (New Testament) Scriptures support inerrancy in the hearts and minds of some sincere Judeo-Christians. Interpretation these passages, however, depends upon the translation of Holy Scripture used and the focus of the reference text. Psalm 12:6 from the King James Version (KJV) is often quoted to prove inerrancy: The words of the LORD are pure words: As silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. On the other hand, the more modern New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) gives: The promises of the LORD are promises that are pure, silver refined in a furnace on the ground, purified seven times. To my mind, promises has more relevance than words considering that Holy Scripture, which I affirm as God’s revelation, originally was written to a people who lived in a pre-scientific age.

Many people who cling to inerrancy postulate that 2 Timothy 3:16-17 confirms a literal reading of Holy Scripture: All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work (NRSV). If science directed to exploring God’s creation and the betterment of humanity is a good work, the context of inspired in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 does not demand factual accuracy in areas encompassed by modern science. Certainly, for Christians, no area of human endeavor, including modern science, lies outside the authority and teachings of Holy Scripture. Biblical Inerrancy falters and confuses the situation and our understanding with attempts to make Holy Scripture a scientific textbook by using arguments inimical to science. (2)

Interpreting supposed claims in Holy Scripture for its own inerrancy opposes what we learned in grammar school: We aren’t allowed to use a word in the definition of that word. For example, defining the color red by saying it is red or gravity is gravity makes no sense. Similarly, a statement that Holy Scripture has no errors whatsoever because Holy Scripture declares itself inerrant cannot stand the test of our God-given reason.

Proponents of Biblical Inerrancy require themselves and others to accept on faith that all humanly perceived discrepancies in Holy Scripture ultimately will be clarified through the work of the Holy Spirit. In the interim, therefore, we should not waste our time discussing any ambiguities within Holy Scripture. This fallacy falls directly into the category of blind or unenlightened and uninformed faith. I believe in the transcendence of the Holy Spirit but, if we follow Biblical Inerrancy to its logical conclusion, “unholy” lines of investigation would be forbidden with the risk of depriving ourselves of the benefits that modern sciences, like medicine, have brought to us. But, we must face the fact that proclaiming Holy Scripture always inerrant gives great security to people whose limited knowledge leads them to fear scientific advances, especially in evolutionary science.

A second attraction of Biblical Inerrancy can be termed the checklist or proof-text approach. The idea behind this tactic involves searching for various scriptural citations that purportedly address any human situation, as exemplified by murder. In the NRSV, the Sixth Commandment states: You shall not murder. The purpose of this admonition appears unequivocal; hence, Judeo-Christians can check the No box beside Murder in a theological application list and refrain from this heinous act. Further consideration suggests that checking the No box leaves open the possibility of killing other humans under some circumstances. Prime examples would be the use of lethal force in self-defense and just wars, endeavors that are killing but not murder.

The KJV renders the Sixth Commandment as Thou shalt not kill. This rendition starkly prohibits the use of deadly force even in self-defense and we see that the checklist/proof text application of Holy Scripture comes with embedded inconsistencies. Once again we must apply our mental processes to ascertain what a text really says and how it should be applied.

The third allure of Biblical Inerrancy lies in an irrational fear that may be called the Perry Mason Effect. In this old television series, Perry Mason represented defendants in criminal cases. Each episode, no matter how dire the predicament for the defendants, always resolved in their favor when Perry detected a fatal flaw in the District Attorney’s cases. Once these flaws were revealed, the prosecution’s cases collapsed like the proverbial house of cards and the defendants were exonerated. Biblical Inerrancists seem to have the attitude that, if even one aspect of Holy Scripture were shown not to have happened exactly as described, the entirety of Judeo-Christianity would fall apart, even bringing into question the existence of God.

Unquestioning belief in Biblical Inerrancy repudiates one of St. Augustine’s most liberating ideas: Judeo-Christians who believe Holy Scripture contradicts what they observe with their own eyes do not understand what Holy Scripture actually says. Keeping in mind St. Augustine’s pronouncement, Judeo-Christians attuned to our scientific and technical age can effectively deal with Biblical Inerrancy by asking and answering the following two-part question:

(a) Did the event happen as recorded in Holy Scripture?

(b) Is the event true as recorded in Holy Scripture?

Valid two-part answers are:

(a) Yes (b) Yes

and

(a) No (b) Yes

Admittedly, some Judeo-Christians who resonate with Biblical Inerrancy have no problem with (a) yes and (b) yes but experience great difficulty getting their minds around (a) no and (b) yes despite overwhelming non-Biblical but realistic evidence for the latter sequence being applicable to some portions of Holy Scripture. The Genesis Creation stories offer an illustrative example for (a) no and (b) yes. Vast amounts of non-Biblical evidence oppose creation of the cosmos and life as described in Genesis; hence, (a) no seems correct. While the mechanism God used to create and maintain creation should be interesting to Judeo-Christians, the overwhelming and fundamental question about creation can be posed as, Did God create all that exists, seen and unseen, regardless of the mechanism used? We must answer with a resounding Yes; hence, sequence (a) no and (b) yes holds without any denegation of the inspired nature of Holy Scripture.

The current mistaken, profoundly divisive, and counterproductive controversies surrounding creationism versus evolution, policies to impose Judeo-Christian morality through the legal system, and how we are to deal with homosexuality furnish prime examples necessitating the utmost of our intellect, experience, and expanded rather than narrow faith, that is, our wisdom. Accepting the validity of (a) no and (b) yes will facilitate our work in spreading the gospel message so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (3)

(1) As will be discussed in Chapter X, rigorously obtained data lead to testable hypotheses, then to scientific theories, and subsequently to scientific laws. Scientific theories, therefore, differ dramatically from non-scientific theories based upon suppositions and inferences without supporting data. The regrettable controversy that rages between Christian proponents of the elegant theory of evolution and Christian believers in the ill-defined creation science or creationism illustrates the confusion surrounding scientific and non-scientific theories.

(2) As explained in Chapter N, Holy Scripture and science should be regarded as complementary, not antagonistic, components of God’s realm.

(3) Philippians 2:10-11 (NRSV)