The ConneXion

At the recent EMC New Leaders Orientation, Ron Penner spoke about the distinctive critique that Anabaptists have with the Apostles creed. While most if not all of what is in the creed is still accepted by Anabaptists as authoritative, Ron noted that among the core elements included such as Christ’s birth, death, and resurrection, at least one critical element is missing: namely, that Jesus lived. Of course this is assumed in the creed, but the fact that the 30 years or so leading up to Christ’s death on the cross does not occupy at least some portion of the creed is of some concern for Anabaptists who emphasize the importance of discipleship.

I was really struck by this critique and, while it did not change my mind on the necessary authority of the Apostle’s Creed, it did provide some helpful perspective for me on another issue that has arisen for me this Christmas, and that is how to understand the meaning of Christmas as it relates to the atonement (Christ’s death for our life; Christ’s faithfulness replacing our unfaithfulness). Recently, I heard one preacher make a comment (and I am paraphrasing somewhat): “Do you want to know the meaning of Christmas? It is that God sent Jesus to die for our sins.” I don’t know how anyone else feels about this statement, but it strikes me that the same problem Ron Penner identified in the Apostles Creed is evident in the preacher’s interpretation of the meaning of Christmas. Why did Jesus come to earth? Was it simply to pay a cosmic debt owed to God? Surely if death was all that was required, then God could have found a more direct way of paying off his own wrath.

However, what if we took a different approach? What if, in fact, the life of Jesus, starting in infancy, moving throughout adolescence and into adulthood, mattered precisely because God’s way of making the world “right” again was not through conforming to a sacrificial system of payment and debt, but rather by expressing Himself as the source of all love. The whole logic (or illogic) of grace, for example, is precisely that payment and debt are not factor’s in God’s decision to love us: God loves us so much, that even when what is owed him (reciprocal love) is not given to him, he keeps on loving. Is this not what Jesus’ life exemplifies?

Now, I am not trying to throw out all notions of substitutionary atonement, but I am trying to ask how we could begin to think, especially at this time of the year, that perhaps Jesus came to live and not just to die. And I think this is important for our discipleship because it implies that the way we live as the Church matters for how we understand grace to be imparted throughout time and within our communities.

What do you think?