I was just reading an article by Giles Fraser... who is Giles Fraser? Hmm... he is the vicar of Putney. Since my geography is quiet weak, I have no idea where Putney is but I liked the article.
In the article he wrote why it is important for Christians to move away from the sacrificial imagery so commonly applied to the death of Christ.
He writes "Jesus is not a blood sacrifice to appease a vicious God. The story (of crucifixtion) is not an endorsement of the idea that sacrifice brings peace with God but an attack on it. "I desire mercy, not sacrifice," Jesus insists, going on to side with the scapegoats themselves. The Gospel is clear. I am with the hunchback. I am with the one cast out. He became one with the rejected and the cast out. And thus he suffered the same fate. This is not to endorse sacrificial theology but to condemn it.
Yet despite this clear identification with the victim, much official Christianity holds on to the sacrificial reading of Christ's death. The present pope has insisted that the Eucharist must be seen as a sacrifice rather than as a meal among friends, and evangelical Christians remain committed to their theory of Christ being sacrificed to offset human sin."
My take on it - When was religion objective or violence free. All religions have endorsed violence in one form on another. Most religions are based on the basic premise - propagation of faith to bring the blinkered into its fold. This tenet in religions encourage violence of thought and violence in deed.
And as to what Mr Fraser is encouraging us to do - while it is admirable, it may not be possible. Re-interpretation of religion means questioning the basic foundation on which the religion is built over centuries. Once re-interpreted then it is open to re-re-interpretation everytime one feels compelled to do it!
But I still liked the message he wants to convey in his article.
In the article he wrote why it is important for Christians to move away from the sacrificial imagery so commonly applied to the death of Christ.
He writes "Jesus is not a blood sacrifice to appease a vicious God. The story (of crucifixtion) is not an endorsement of the idea that sacrifice brings peace with God but an attack on it. "I desire mercy, not sacrifice," Jesus insists, going on to side with the scapegoats themselves. The Gospel is clear. I am with the hunchback. I am with the one cast out. He became one with the rejected and the cast out. And thus he suffered the same fate. This is not to endorse sacrificial theology but to condemn it.
Yet despite this clear identification with the victim, much official Christianity holds on to the sacrificial reading of Christ's death. The present pope has insisted that the Eucharist must be seen as a sacrifice rather than as a meal among friends, and evangelical Christians remain committed to their theory of Christ being sacrificed to offset human sin."
My take on it - When was religion objective or violence free. All religions have endorsed violence in one form on another. Most religions are based on the basic premise - propagation of faith to bring the blinkered into its fold. This tenet in religions encourage violence of thought and violence in deed.
And as to what Mr Fraser is encouraging us to do - while it is admirable, it may not be possible. Re-interpretation of religion means questioning the basic foundation on which the religion is built over centuries. Once re-interpreted then it is open to re-re-interpretation everytime one feels compelled to do it!
But I still liked the message he wants to convey in his article.
