February 15, 2004
Jeremiah 17:5-10; I Corinthians 15:12-20; Luke 6:17-26
Jeremiah had already established his credentials as a spokesperson for "The Lord". It is clear that his theology was one which viewed God as in control of everything. His theological/philosophical approach to life was therefore "Do as God wants you to do and prosper...fail to obey God and reap negative consequences!" His instructive admonition therefore went something like this: "Cursed is the man who trusts in man...Blessed is the man who trusts in the Lord...The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately corrupt...I the Lord search the mind and try the heart to give to every man according to his ways..." IF God is in control of everything then why doesn't "He" arbitrarily change every human heart so that every person "trusts in the Lord and not in man?" Clearly God does not do this. Does God not do this because He is UNABLE to do so? Does God not do this because God CHOOSES not to do so? Logic indicates the latter answer is correct, i.e. if God can do everything but does not do what must be done for all men to obey him, then it must be a matter of God's choice. Why would God choose not to arbitrarily change the human heart? Logic would again indicate that there is a value greater to God than mandatory obedience. That value is freedom. Why would God view human freedom to choose, as a value greater than mandatory obedience? Process theology suggests that God is interested (symbolic language is used here to facilitate understanding) in "partnership" with human beings rather than a "slaved" or "fearful" relationship. Does the reported behavior of Jesus and his emphasis on love prompting one to do good because they choose to do good, ring a bell in this regard?
The Old Testament represented a theology in process of growing. So does the New Testament. Contemporary theology should do the same! Already our Hebrew ancestors had learned that various expressions (behavior/attitude) of living are like sowing seed. Planting seed initiates a creativity that reproduces more of the same. They had learned that certain kinds of behavior was bad and some kinds of behavior was good. They had also learned that sometimes people choose to do "bad" even though they know better. Part of the genius of our Hebrew/Christian heritage is that a strong emphasis is placed on doing what is perceived to be "good". This emphasis is empowered by proclaiming it as "the will of God" who has power to punish and power to reward. The primary message of Jeremiah, and the entire Old Testament, was that it was better to do good out of fear than it was not to do good and reap the consequences. His message of hope was found in an indication that if persons had remorse for their past, changed their behavior out of fear, or any other reason, and committed themselves to Godly obedience, The Lord would notice their change, forgive their sins, and give them a more hopeful future.
In writing to the Church at Corinth, Paul took the Old Testament theology a bit further in its process of growth. This does not mean that Paul took it to perfection. Important to symbolizing remorse, repentance, and a desire to change human behavior in the Old Testament was the sacrificing of an animal, i.e., the giving of a life, to satisfy God. Paul, in harmony with other disciples of Jesus, rationalized a "reason" for the crucifixion of Jesus "The Son of God". The rationalization was that God required sacrifice and that God offered up his only Son, Jesus, as a sacrifice that would end the need for future blood sacrifices, once and for all. For Paul, the proof of this arrangement was found in the combination death and resurrection of Jesus. Paul went so far as to indicate that the foundation of Christian discipleship was based firmly on the death and resurrection of Jesus. Because of the tremendous energy Paul put into spreading the "Gospel" and the organizational church, this became central to the belief system of the early and traditional church. Paul said, "If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God..." This is pretty direct and easily understood language! Little wonder that those who choose to believe the Bible literally and, typically out of fear, buy Paul's theology of two thousand years ago, are fearful of any theological thinking outside of "this box." Fear in a "loving God" is generated through biblical statements such as these made by Paul: "If Christ has not been raised your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If for this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most to be pitied." Hope for Paul came in these words: "But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead..." For Paul then, belief in Christ as Jesus dying on the cross as a sacrifice and then rising from the dead, was both central and critical to the Christian faith. If one didn't believe these two things, then why bother with religion?
Surely it is interesting that it is not reported that Jesus spent much of his rhetorical ministry emphasizing this belief which Paul made central to Christian discipleship! If it was as important as Paul indicated it seems that Jesus would not have overlooked it! Process Theology respects where Paul "was" and "why". It also says we must go beyond the idea that God requires sacrifices of any kind. Instead it emphasizes a "loving" partnership with God where, as Jesus taught, we do the best we know how because we love to do what makes life more harmonious with a contemporary belief in the nature and expectations of God for the human family. Process Theology also "holds" that we never know all about God, all about what God is about, or all about human potential. Furthermore it holds that any progress human beings make in improving human life as we understand it to be at its best, is a result of humans and God working together. If you wish to test this "theory", make a list of all human accomplishments that have come about through God's direct intervention or revelation. Make another list where human accomplishments have come about as a result of their utilizing "gifts/talents" given through the process of creation, i.e. genetic inheritance. The latter is an example, and a wonderful one, of human beings and God working together as partners.
Now let's see what Jesus had to say in word and/or behavior! Luke tells the story of how Jesus came down from the hills with his newly "called" disciples and found a level place where a larger crowd could hear in comfort. He had something important to say which he wanted "the Apostles" to repeat again and again. "And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples and said...." What did he say? He pronounced blessings on all who hurt, the poor, the hungry, the sad, those who were in mourning and those who were hated. He told them they could begin to live in hope because better days were ahead. He pronounced "woes" on the rich who ignored the poor, the well-fed who ignored the hungry, those filled with joy who ignored those who wept and mourned, and those who had the approval of others because they always did what was politically correct in the eyes of those with power over them. Jesus viewed God as a loving parent. He viewed human beings as family who could only find abundant life as they worked at helping one another. He had a message of hope for those who could find no reason to hope. He had a message of personal responsibility for those who had resources to share. Notice, in this discussion which has been viewed by the church for centuries as part of "The Sermon on the Mount", i.e. the core of the teachings of Jesus, that he said nothing about sacrificing himself for the sins of the world. He said nothing about the need for them to believe in his sacrificial death and resurrection. It does make sense, doesn't it, for one who believes in God as a loving parent to teach that the children of God ought to live together as a mutually supportive family motivated by love for one another!