May 6, 2006

• now... i had read with interest the Q & A from Bishop Spong, since i had known him as a controversial figure in the Episcopal church, particularly within New Jersey... it would never have occurred to me to equate the pagan practice of child sacrifice with the crucifixion.  i am at odds with him as well as to it (child sacrifice) being predominate in Jewish tradition.  it was exactly because Jewish practice/Hebrew worsip experience repudiated child sacrifice that the story of Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son becomes so powerful - his willingness to be obedient to God even when God is asking him to do something that God, Godself, has forbidden...

  
  

  As far as the sacrifice of the paschal lamb goes, i believe the concept of sacrificing the first born lamb reflects back to the practice of giving all first ruits of any endeavor to God.  if you might reacll, this was an issue between Cain and Abel, back in Genesis.  For Yom Kippur, it was not so much that an animal was sacrificed > the practice was to bring forward a goat, first born male without blemish, and the high priest would, in the name of all the people, place his hands on the head of the goat to transfer all the sins of the people into that goat.  the goat was then allowed to escape into the wilderness (the probable origin of the term "scape goat")...  it is only with respect to the reception of the sins of the people upon an innocent that the Yom Kippur observence resembles the crucifixion.

  
  

  part of what limits Bishop Spong's interpretation of the crucifixion , in my opinion (and if i might be so bold as to disagree with a bishop), is his lack of belief (or apparent lack of belief) in the Trinity.  Jesus was so much more than a, or even The, Child of God> Jesus was God, Godself.  so it was not simply God sending God's son to death ona cross ,but God taking that role willingly upon Godself... to paraphrase John's gospel, "God loved the world so much that God gave Godself to the end that all who believe... "

  
  

  there is no way to deny that being in covenant with YHWH involves blood.  that is the point of circumcision.  there is no oath stronger than a blood oath, and the Hebrews bound themselves to God with their blood, and the blood of their children.  that said, only the willingly given lifeblood of one who was fully, completely, perfectly human, and yet at the same time fulland completely possessing the power and divinity of God could represent both sides of the covenant and redeem us all...

  
  

  and it is because of his lack of understanding of the Trinity that Bishop Spong misses that this act of self-sacrifice demonstrates the identity of God more than anything else... our Triune God is the Lover - Creator God... the Belovéd - Redeemer God... and the Love That Binds - the Holy Spirit.  we, as part of God's good creation, are continually swept up in that dance of love and spirit... the love that would give any thing to redeem us and bring all of us (believer and non-believer alike) back into that wondrous dance.   God loves us.  God is love by definition.  and it is that definition that redeems us all...

  • 11:52 pm
  • 2 Comments