A Year of Living Dangerously

“I, even I, am he who blots out your transgressions, for my own sake, and remembers your sins no more.” Isaiah 43:25  NIV

Blots out – I think I need to confess.  I’ve been branded a heretic because of my views about the royal position of the woman (Guardian Angel) and my argument that Yeshua is the human Jewish Messiah (CrossWord Puzzles).  I’m sure some feel theologically uncomfortable when I write about the political/social motivation of the early Church’s antisemitism.  I know others are concerned that I’ve “lost the faith” when I question the doctrines of inspiration and inerrancy.  So, I think it’s time to come out of the closet.  The truth is: I am a heretic!  At least from the perspective of orthodox, evangelical, conservative Christian theology.  There, I’ve said it.  Now we can put that debate to rest.  If you read what I write and you follow along to some degree or another, then you’re moving in a direction away from traditional, orthodox Christianity, and that is bound to cause difficulties.  In the past, it cost me my academic position.  I sure that won’t be the end of this.  It makes me think that this year, 2024, I need to be more direct about these changes.  What have I got to lose?  It’s time to really speak my mind.  And if that causes a few more rifts, well then, so be it.  Someone needs to say it, so it might as well be me.

Let’s start with a critique of one of my all-time most influential authors: Oswald Chambers.  It could be argued that Oswald’s collection in My Utmost for His Highest is the second most-read Christian title.  Heaven knows (literally) how many lives have been shaped by this man’s ruminations on spiritual themes.  At one point it was my daily devotional reading.  But now, as a heretic, I find a lot of paradigm thinking in his work—and his paradigm doesn’t square with the biblical text although it is certainly aligned with orthodox Christianity.  It’s not pleasant to critique an author who has had powerful positive impact on me.  But as my perception of Scripture has changed, so has my evaluation of past theological truths.  I was particularly struck by his statements about forgiveness in the entries for November 19 and 20.  He wrote:

The great miracle of the grace of God is that He forgives sin, and it is the death of Jesus Christ alone that enables the Divine nature to forgive and to remain true to itself in doing so.  It is shallow nonsense to say that God forgives us because He is love.  When we have been convicted of sin we will never say that again.  The love of God means Calvary, and nothing less; the love of God is spelt on the Cross and nowhere else. . .

The only ground on which God can forgive us is the tremendous tragedy of the Cross of Christ; to put forgiveness on any other ground is unconscious blasphemy. . . The revelation of God is that He cannot forgive; it would contradict His nature if He did.  The only way we can be forgiven is by being brought back to God by the Atonement, . .

The sentiment is noble, but the theology erases everything about God in the Tanakh.  Jesus’ death on the cross cannot be the grounds for God’s forgiveness without obliterating the sacrificial system, Israel’s holy days, the Levitical priesthood, and Jesus’ own words about the nature of the Father.  The role of the Cross as the absolute centerpiece of Christian theology is replacement theology.  It ignores the Jewishness of the apostolic authors.  Perhaps the development of the Christian faith made this inevitable, but that doesn’t make it biblical.  If we decide to follow Christian orthodoxy, then Oswald’s words ring true, but if we take the whole Bible seriously, then we will have to admit that the death on the cross isn’t really about forgiveness.  Forgiveness was already available through Jewish practice.  Once we recognize this, then we will have to grapple with this critical event from a different point of view.  And that means becoming a heretic—for good reasons.

Topical Index: forgiveness, Cross, blots out, Isaiah 43:25