The theology of Harry Potter #7: book vs film

Brad Littlejohn has an excellent exposition of the theology of the final Harry Potter book in comparison to the final film (which doesn't stack up so well). If you ever wanted someone to demonstrate that there was much more going on christologically in Rowling than the all too common and wearily superficial assumption that her depiction of magic equalled a nefarious seduction of young minds into Satanic arts, then read his piece.

Warning: film plot spoilers.

McCormack lectures on the death of Christ

As I mentioned back here, Princeton theologian Bruce McCormack is currently at New College giving a series of lectures titled, "Abandoned by God: The Death of Christ in Systematic, Historical, and Exegetical Perspective". Brad Littlejohn has started a detailed and excellent summary of the lectures on his blog. I hope he continues.

Bruce McCormack coming to New College

The Croall lectures 2011 will be given by Professor Bruce McCormack and will take place in January 2011 entitled "Abandoned by God: The Death of Christ in Systematic, Historical, and Exegetical Perspective" in the Martin Hall at New College at 4pm.

17th January – Penal Substitution: Its Problems and Its Promise
18th January – The Cry of Dereliction: The Strange Fate of Jesus in the New Testament
20th January – The Incarnation as Saving Event: Theories Which Order the Work of Christ to a Metaphysical Conception of His Person
24th January – Let Justice and Peace Reign: Theories Which Fail to Integrate the Person and Work of Christ
25th January – After Metaphysics: Theories Which Order the Person of Christ to His Work
27th January – The Lord of Glory was Crucified: Reformed Kenoticism and Death in God.

Information from the New College website, brought to my attention by Jason.

More links

Jason reflects on the cross and atonement: on penal substitution.

Michael questions the value of future pastors and teachers learning Hebrew and Greek.

The cruciality of the cross

The cross of Christ is not and cannot be loved. Yet only the crucified Christ can bring the freedom which changes the world because it is no longer afraid of death. In his time the crucified Christ was regarded as a scandal and foolishness. Today, too, it is considered old-fashioned to put him in the centre of Christian faith and of theology. Yet only when men [sic] are reminded of him, however untimely this may be, can they be set free from the power of the facts of the present time, and from the laws and compulsions of history, and be offered a future which will never grow dark again. Today the church and theology must turn to the crucified Christ in order to show the world the freedom he offers. This is essential if they wish to become what they assert they are: the church of Christ, and Christian theology. […] Whether or not Christianity, in an alienated, divided and oppressive society, itself becomes alienated, divided and an accomplice of oppression, is ultimately decided only by whether the crucified Christ is a stranger to it or the Lord who determines the form of its existence. […] In Christianity the cross is the test of everything which deserves to be called Christian.”

– Jürgen Moltmann, The Crucified God: The cross of Christ as the foundation and criticism of Christian Theology, 1, 3, 7.

The cross (or better, as Moltmann says, the Crucified) is rightly the centre and focus of Christian theology. Many theologies, however, are content to discuss this event (indeed, this person) in terms of atonement or salvation. Christ died for our sins - for us - thus defeating evil, atoning for our transgressions, cleansing us from stain, putting us to death that we may live, redeeming us from slavery to nothingness, reconciling us to his Father - and a whole range of other images used in the scriptures. This is indeed the foundation, but not the extent, of any theology of the cross. The crucifixion of Christ is not just atonement, but also revelation and way of life: it doesn't just bring peace between us and the Father, it also reveals the Father's heart of love and humility and summons us to true life in the way of the cross.
Title of post stolen from a P. T. Forsyth book title. I thought I'd better acknowledge this debt before the avatar of Forsyth turns up to enforce it!

von Balthasar on atonement

It is always the dogma of the removal of guilt through representative substitution that shows most decisively whether an approach is merely anthropologically or truly christologically (that is, theologically) centred. Without this dogma, it always remains possible to interpret everything in rational terms as an expression of human possibility, no matter how much historical mediation one wishes to build in. Our inability to resolve this dogma into gnosis is the true scandal; it is a signal and a warning that this is where genuine faith begins.

-Hans Urs von Balthasar, Love Alone is Credible
(trans. D. C. Schindler; San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2004 [1963]), 100.

Ever since at least Feuerbach, some people have taken theological language (language about God) as really just a metaphorical way of talking about humanity and the human condition. Of course, whatever we think or say about God reveals something of what we think about ourselves (and vice versa), but this is an implication, not the (true, hidden) meaning of theology. In this passage, von Balthasar points out that it is the doctrine of the atonement - of Christ's dealing with our guilt by dying for our sins, dying for us - that bursts the bubble of thinking we're actually just talking about ourselves. Either we drop this doctrine, or we drop the focus on ourselves.

Can the cross obscure Jesus?

Can't see the go(o)d for the tree
Interesting 'anonymous' rant over at Hebel about how the gospel might sometimes be (mis?)represented. Can some descriptions of the cross fail to do justice to the importance of Jesus? Does this caricature sound familiar?

God made the world, but people sinned, it all went pear shaped and humans were in the red. So God sent his son, killed him to fudge the books for us, so if we repent (of something?) and believe (in grace not works), then we have direct access to the father (Jesus job is done, he now sits on the sidelines). Where is the Resurrection? Where is the Ascension? Where is Jesus? Is god a bad account keeper?

Love to hear what people think of the author's suggested alternative account.
Points for the location of this photo. I'll decide how many by how accurate the description is.

Wright on Penal Substitution

N. T. Wright, the sometimes controversial evangelical Anglican bishop of Durham, has recently published an article on the Fulcrum website reviewing a book about the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement. As always, it is probably better to read the original if this is a debate that floats your boat. Here is a taste:

To throw away the reality because you don’t like the caricature is like cutting out the patient’s heart to stop a nosebleed. Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, and all because of the unstoppable love of the one creator God. There is ‘no condemnation’ for those who are in Christ, because on the cross God condemned sin in the flesh of the Son who, as the expression of his own self-giving love, had been sent for that very purpose. ‘He did not spare his very own Son, but gave him up for us all.’ That’s what Good Friday was, and is, all about.

Worse than death? III

Jesus' obedience unto death

...let us also lay aside every weight and the sin that clings so closely, and let us run with perseverance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus the pioneer and perfecter of our faith, who for the sake of the joy that was set before him endured the cross, disregarding its shame, and has taken his seat at the right hand of the throne of God.

- Hebrews 12.1-2 (NRSV)

Jesus was obedient to the point of death. The possibility, even the inevitability, that following his Father's will would lead to a painful and shameful execution was not for him a reason for compromise or recalculation. He knew that sin is worse than death. And so he continued walking the dangerous path of calling Israel to repentance and of living without fear of what others might do to him because of it.

Now Jesus clearly loved life. He wept over his friend's death. He healed and forgave those threatened by death and sin. He spoke of life to the full and celebrated children and weddings. He feasted and drank, thanking his Father for good things. Yet his love for life and the good creation did not dominate his existence so that every effort was to be made to preserve his life and health. First came faithfulness to his God and Father. This was his agenda, wherever it led him. He would not sacrifice everything to stay alive, nor was he in a rush to die. Indeed, all other things being equal, he would have preferred to have been able to avoid the cup of suffering, but instead he prayed and lived "not my will, but yours be done" (Luke 22.42).

For Jesus to have treated death as the worst possible outcome and as his primary enemy would have distracted him from the very path that would lead to its defeat. Jesus defeated death not by avoiding it but by solving the problem that causes it, by healing the crack in the world that leads to all decay and degeneration. He undid Adam's disobedience through obedience. He took on our temptations and succeeded where we failed.

Much more can and should be said about the cross, but at the very least, we see that regard for God trumps fear of death in Jesus' willingness to obey in all things, even when life itself is at stake.
Ten points for the name of this stone.
Series: I, II, III, IV, V, VI.