Nietzsche argued that Christianity gets going by first inventing a religious-type problem - like hell - and then offering itself as the solution; that it's a fictional/metaphysical deliverance from a fictional/metaphysical affliction. In other words: a racket. This may be true of some versions of Christianity - particularly the nasty evangelical salvation story known as penal substitution.
However, that last bit was a bit OTT. Mainly because it is not fair. It's not fair because whatever else we say about PS theory, when it is properly stated it avoids most of the pitfalls that would earn it the adjective "nasty". We should note that it is the popular versions that are problematic.
I think that the critique is on surer grounds with Nietzsche's quoted view. And this relates to my point a few days back about guilt-arousal preaching. We have lost it culturally when we are having to persuade people of the problem we are claiming to have a solution to. We should be connecting the already felt issues with the Good news in much more direct ways. That's why where people are coming to Christ it is often to do with finding their place within the cosmos, a sense of vocation or of connection that is foremost. Guilt and the need for SP theory is not really on most people's radar. I suspect that we need to make connections between the cross and resurrection on the one hand (and note both terms) and the search for meaning, placedness, 'vocation' and God's good purposes for the world. Forgiveness just isn't a central or primary concern for most people. And worse, by trying to insist it ought to be, we actually are heard to be moralistic and guilt-tripping thought-police: not at all good news.
Embrace freedom | Guardian daily comment | Guardian Unlimited
Technorati Tags: Giles_Fraser, Easter, resurrection, witness, Christian, cross, penal_subsitition, forgiveness, guilt
No comments:
Post a Comment