alienation – Perspectives

Single lens approaches to themes can be helpful but also limiting. The classic is that of the ‘atonement’ with a particular theory being made the explanation of what took place – and this includes the popular ‘scapegoat’ approach – popular among progressives. I write the previous words to acknowledge that I am about to write about a single lens approach to creation, fall and redemption; I am also going to push the boat out, maybe away from the shore too much for some, as this blog is entitled ‘perspectives’ – though I am getting close to being ready to put my weight on the concept I will present and I think it will not give way! The next post will be the one where the exploration is expressed.

The single lens is that of alienation and reconciliation. (Single lens – not that of guilt and forgiveness / justification as per the Reformation.) I do not read Genesis as perfection and fall but as humanity created for relationship with God and created where that relationship can grow (all is good, not perfect as in the sense of mature), so not a hard fall but a departure from the path that leads ever closer to God, but a fall that is a historic statement on humanity so that ‘all have sinned (missed the purpose of what it is to be humanity) and thus have fallen short of (not attained) the glory of God (as would have been revealed if humanity had grown – as revealed by the one who came and having suffered grew into true humanity)’…. (Hope Paul is happy with my parenthesis!)

The result of not taking the path of eating from the tree of life but from the tree of (independent) knowledge of good and evil, of taking the independent path of becoming like God is relational alienation. Shame enters the world of humanity and there comes an inability to see God. The hiding from God is somewhat ironic for what it meant was not that humanity was able to hide but that the result was that they could not see God – it was if God became the hidden God! The ‘devil’ works off the back of this to blind the eyes so that sight becomes impossible.

The relation with each other – the one who is both like us ‘bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh’ and also different ‘male and female s/he made them’ is distorted with the other in the wrong (hence ‘scapegoating’ is not an irrelevant aspect) thus the inter-human-relationships are deeply affected, spilling over as we read beyond the Genesis 3 ‘fall’ of familial murder and then into wider warfare, written about both implicitly and explicitly in the expanding narrative concerning nations and city building.

We also have the rather strange passage about the outside-of-appointed-boundaries sexual relations between ‘sons of God’ and ‘daughters of women’. Myth but truly representing the distortion of rightly-ordered respectful relationships – affecting not simply our habitat but the entire cosmic order.

And we add to this the tension on the physical world around us – ‘cursed because of you’.

So my summarised single lens is that of ‘alienation’ that outworks in at least four ways:

Alienation in the relationship to God – not on God’s side, but the invisible God becomes the hidden God
Alienation from the other
Alienation from creation
Alienation from oneself

If we then jump beyond Genesis 1-11 we come to the opening lines about God appearing to Abraham in the land of Mesopotamia and called him to walk a (literal and spiritual) different path we begin on the redemptive narrative. A relational path away from the centre. The laws that then follow are given to a redeemed people so that in turn they can be part of the redemptive activity of God. The laws concern the alienation ‘problems’ – addressing at the centre the first two areas, with a focus on (as Jesus said) what the entire law and the prophets are based: love for God and for the neighbour. I wrote in The LifeLine (yes go and order it!) that the cross is essentially to do with cleansing so that there can be a meeting point for anyone to meet with the holy God, or in Paul’s words that ‘God was in Christ (Messiah, representative Israel / humanity) reconciling the world (all humanity) to him/herself’. Once Jesus dies there can be no sanctuary per se; the temple curtain must divide not only as a sign but to reveal that when the full truth is revealed what is hidden can be shown not to be present. Emmanuel, God with us, is not in a sanctuary, but ‘with us’ to the end of whatever age we choose to measure things by.

Reconciliation. And reconciliation in four directions:

Reconciled to God
Reconciled to the other
Reconciled to creation
Reconciled to one self

The issues have always been relational – the solution has to be relational. The centre is not legal to be settled in a cosmic lawcourt before a Judge, but the familial setting is central – we call no one ‘father’ but the God whose eyes have always seen us (read the Hagar story) resulting in a re-establishing of familial relationships, as described by Jesus:

Here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.” (Matt. 12:49-50)

My single lens – alienation and reconciliation. In the next post I will seek to explore the four areas of reconciliation.

What words do we use regarding the biblical narrative of ‘fall’ and ‘redemption’. The Western world since the Reformation has focused on sin and used that to essentially describe the problem in a right / wrong framework with humanity on the wrong side thus being condemned for not living obediently up to the standards of heaven. ‘Guilty’ being the resulting judgement. (An unpayable debt being the forerunner to this ‘guilt perspective’, with deliverance or recapitulation predominating the early post-NT writings. Shame being another lens mainly contributed from an eastern perspective.)

I am convinced that we have to find a different set of lenses than guilt which will bring about re-definitions to how the Reformation taught us to see. God is relational, and the problem is how to bring about a relational restoration. Not only do we need redefinition of the various ‘sin’ words (sin, trespass, iniquity) but also to such terms as ‘forgiveness’ and certainly a deeper understanding as to how forgiveness comes about.

There is a very hard view of the cross which in simple terms has an angry God and a Jesus who is willing to be punished in our place, so that the wrath of God is satisfied. A softer presentation is along the lines of (illustration) we have visited a home and broken a vase and as a result someone will have to pay to replace the vase (this softer version being as much aligned with the pre-Reformation debt as it is with the guilt model). Thankfully that is a softer approach but misses it with the illustration – it is not a broken vase, or even a broken commandment that is the heart of the issue, it is a broken relationship. This is why forgiveness is so key, not forgiveness on the basis of payment, though all forgiveness proves costly.

We do need to bring redefinition to certain words when they are applied to God. We can make the error of transferring human / fallen emotion on to God. Wrath / anger – if we see this through human emotion what picture of God do we end up with? likewise when we read that God is a jealous God we tend to project emotions from a broken romantic relationship; and I also propose that we have to go a little deeper with the word ‘forgiveness’. When I am wronged I might have to process what took place, and then go through various feelings to eventually get to the place of forgiveness. Imagine if that was the process with God… eventual forgiveness but the carrying of billions of wounds, suspicions and a resultant reticence to commit again, with a great level of self-protectionism!!! We cannot, as Barth said, say ‘man’ (sic) with a loud voice and imagine we are saying ‘God’. Neither can we project human experiences of emotion on to God and imagine that we are reflecting the emotional experiences of God.

The word aphesis / forgiveness has at the roots that of releasing so the untying of a boat to sail to its destiny was an aphesis. God’s forgiveness is right at the forefront, not as a result of working through a process, but right at the forefront is the releasing of whoever to their destiny. Forgiveness is not that of overcoming a sense of being wronged but of desiring freedom for one and all and actioning that desire.

Back to the relational aspect of all things and to the relational aspect therefore of the cross: we have to understand this is not about payment for something broken, but an act to bring about the restoration of relationship, as Paul puts it ‘God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself’.

What beautiful words… the world, reconciliation, and to bring about a relational connetion. And as we follow it through we realise there must also be an annuling of wrong relatoinsips to the powers that have dominated, powers that are summed up with the two words ‘sin’ and ‘death’, with all the sub-categories of principalities and powers.

Reconciliation:

to God
to others
to self
and to creation.

(Adrian Lowe put me in touch with a video of Iain McGilchrist who approaches these dimensions from the view of a psychiatrist; a not short interview but full of insights:

Every aspect of those four relational areas in the early chapters of Genesis were broken as an account of the various ‘falls’ are outlined. The God /human might be at the forefront, but the creational rift is very evident (‘cursed because of you’) and the othering of even close familial relationships with blame shifting (Adam / Eve) and and murder (Cain / Abel) are seeds that inevitably lead to inter-tribal division.

Reconciliation is a process, for salvation is a process (and this is perhaps why ‘healing’ is a good synonym to use for salvation). And if a process perhaps salvation is more on a spectrum than ‘in/out’ language suggests.

Mending what is broken is God’s work and the invitation to participate in that work is still open.

Tag: alienation

Reconcilation… wholistically

Alienation and reconciliation

SHARE ON:

SHARE ON: