- Clever and Funny Video
- Upcoming Activism Outreach Opportunities
- Comment on the Previous Essay
- Essay: Thoughts on Substitutionary Atonement Theory
- This Week’s Sermon from Rev. Frank and Mary Hoffman
1. Clever and Funny Video
Fresh Meat
This video raises an interesting question: If humans are “naturally
omnivores,” why do the animal agriculture industries keep slaughterhouse
operations from the public? People should derive pleasure from watching
animals killed, if it were “natural” for us to kill and eat nonhumans.
2. Upcoming Activism Outreach Opportunities
1/21 OK Yukon The Hoppers Gospel
1/26 MS Biloxi The Rock and Worship Show
1/27 AL Huntsville The Rock and Worship Road Show
1/27-28 FL Miami Benny Hinn Miracle Crusade
1/28 IN Indianapolis The Rock and Worship Road Show
1/29 MN St. Paul The Rock and Worship Road Show
2/2 IL Hoffman Estates The Rock and Worship Road Show
2/2-3 AZ Phoenix Benny Hinn Miracle Crusade
2/3 MI Ypsilanti The Rock and Worship Road Show
2/4 WI Madison The Rock and Worship Road Show
2/9 TX Corpus Christi The Rock and Worship Road Show
2/10 TX Dallas The Rock and Worship Road Show
2/11 TX Wichita Falls The Rock and Worship Road Show
2/12 NM Las Cruces The Rock and Worship Road Show
2/17 OK Tulsa The Rock and Worship Road Show
2/26 MO Springfield The Rock and Worship Road Show
3/8-9 NC Charlotte Benny Hinn Miracle Crusade
4/22 CA San Diego TABLE EarthWorks' EarthFair 2012
4/22 MO St. Louis TABLE Earth Day Festival
4/28-29 CT Hartford TABLE Connecticut Vegetarian & Healthy
Living Festival
5/20 CA Van Nuys TABLE WorldFest 2012
International events:
1/29 CANADA Alberta Edmonton Third Day Christian Rock Concert
Contact Paris at christian_vegetarian@yahoo.com if you can help. To
find out about all upcoming leafleting and tabling opportunities in your
area, join the CVA Calendar Group at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/christian_vegetarian/
3. Comment on Previous Essay
Essay: Does God Want Sacrifices? Part 2
In the Old Testament God required blood sacrifices for the atonement
of sin. That was when man was under the law but we are now under grace.
After Jesus died on the cross for our sins, He became that blood
sacrifice and they were no longer required by God. As stated in Romans
2:24,25 Jesus became a propitiation for us, by which we received pardon,
deliverance and freedom.
The very reason that Jesus died on the cross and became a living
sacrifice for our sins was so that we could be seen blameless in God's
eyes, who can tolerate no sin, through the death of His Son and shedding
of His blood. He gave his son because he loved us. What a wonderful
loving God! We have to accept Jesus as Lord of our life and we can then
spend eternity with Him in heaven. Read the book of John, please. We
deserve justice, but He gave us mercy and then grace. We deserve
neither.
Because of Him, a Christian vegan,
Sheri Johnson
4. Essay: Thoughts on Substitutionary Atonement Theory
Christians have struggled to understand why Jesus suffered and died
on the cross. Indeed, his death was a scandal in the decades following
Jesus’ death. If Jesus were really God incarnate, critics of early
Christianity argued, why was he unable to avoid ignominious death as a
common criminal? A popular explanation, particularly among contemporary
Protestants, is one that has evolved over 2000 years. This theory,
sometimes called “substitutionary atonement theory,” holds that Jesus’
death was necessary, because divine law required that sin must be
punished. Humanity’s sin, which relates back to Adam and Eve’s “original
sin,” had created an imbalance between good and evil in the universe,
and punishment was necessary to restore order. Jesus submitted to and
bore the punishment that all humans, as sinners, should have received.
Only a perfectly innocent individual, which Jesus represented, could
atone for humanity’s inherent sinfulness. Many Christians today hold
that belief in this substitutionary atonement theory is an essential
component of salvation, and only “saved” Christians will enjoy
everlasting bliss in Heaven.
I will not claim that this theory is wrong, but I do find it
problematic for several reasons. First, the question, “Who killed Jesus”
can lead to some awkward conclusions. If the mob, the Roman authorities,
or the high priests were responsible for killing Jesus, then one would
come to the awkward conclusion that the evildoers – not Jesus – were
actually fulfilling the divine mission to substitute an innocent victim
for sinful humanity. Further, if humans killed Jesus, it would make
little sense to see Jesus’ death as atonement for humanity’s sins,
because this would mean that sinful humanity had saved itself by killing
an innocent person. In other words, murder had somehow delivered
humanity from sin. Therefore, it appears that, if humanity’s salvation
derived from killing Jesus, then God must be responsible. So, these
theologies suggest that God either killed or orchestrated Jesus’ death.
This seems to portray God in an unattractive light and seems to conflict
with God’s previous declaration, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am
well pleased” (Matthew 3:17).
The substitutionary atonement theory assumes that justice and
righting of wrongs involve some kind of retribution. According to this
framework, the problem with sin is that it causes an imbalance – a
disturbance of the moral order of the universe. Given humanity’s
depravity and sinfulness, the only way to restore balance is through the
most severe punishment: death. However, such a view separates God’s
justice from God’s forgiveness. This separation is both theologically
and socially problematic, because it encourages people to choose to
either focus on God’s justice or God’s forgiveness, depending on their
own temperament or on the moral issue at hand. When there is relative
peace and well-being, people can choose to abide by the dictates of a
loving and forgiving God. When there is social unrest or a crisis,
people can revert to the image of God as wrathful and vengeful. Indeed,
religions throughout history have included images of the divine as
wrathful and vengeful, and they have regarded their own violence as
service to their angry god(s).
Substitutionary atonement theory facilitates this universal problem
from manifesting itself among Christians. With God involved in violence
and punishment, it becomes easier for Christians to justify their own
violence and punishment “in the name of God.” Some might argue that,
because God’s wrath has been fully satisfied by the perfect sacrifice of
Jesus, God is no longer wrathful. Consequently, substitutionary
atonement theory might be compatible with an image of God as one who has
become purely loving, compassionate, and merciful. However, this view
presumes that God’s temperament has changed over time; it does not
account well for Jesus teaching, before his death, that we should love
God and love our neighbor as ourselves (Luke 10:25-28); and, though many
people claim hold such a view, it seems to me that few actually behave
as if they believe it, likely because it fails to appeal to the
near-universal desire for vengeance. When people see themselves as
victims of mistreatment, they generally become angry. It remains
tempting for people who believe that they have been wronged to believe
that a God of justice likely shares their righteous indignation. They
might then regard their own vengeance as assisting God in meting out
justice.
Next week, I will further explore concerns about the social
consequences of substitutionary atonement theory.
Stephen R. Kaufman, M.D.
5. This Week’s Sermon from Rev. Frank and Mary Hoffman
The Two-Fold Message of Christ’s Baptism