Replacement Theology

[Ben Masada]

Replacement Theology

Replacement Theology is as old as Christianity itself, considering that the etimology of the expression acquired its real meaning with the rise of Christianity.

Some people object to the focusing on Christianity for the reason why Replacement Theology originated, because the Jewish People was not the only ancient people with the original claim to be God's chosen People.

It's true that a few other ancient peoples upheld the same claim, but there was never one to rise with the claim that a people had been replaced by another as God's chosen People.

Christianity became the first religious organization to rise with the claim that a change had occurred in the designs of God, which would define the rejection of the Jewish People, and resplacement with Christianity.

The classical NT document, which would give rise to this Christian policy is found in Galatians 4:21-31.

Paul would compare God's Covenant with the Jewish People as Hagar, who was Sara's slave girl, and the Jews as her son, who was rejected even to share with Isaac, the inheritance of Canaan. On the other hand, he compares Christianity to Sara and Christians to her son Isaac.

To conclude, Paul appeals to cast out the slave girl together with her son for the obvious reason that Israel, the Jewish People, would never be an heir with the son of the one born free.

That's the picture of Replacement Theology and not simply a people claiming Divine election. A group of Interfaith Scholars have classified Replacement Theology as a kind of Antisemitism.

Ben

[bernee51]

Okay. Panentheistic Humanism.

This was what was taught in college Religion departments back in the mid to late 70's. It's old now. I subscribed when I was 19 for about a year.

Then when I hit the brutal world of seminary (professional school where they teach you how to represent an institution), I and my fellow students were hit square in the face by our profs with a question about our college panentheism:

Can you run a church on THAT?

As churches are a business and a business must offer something in return fo rwhatever its customers invest in it and that something must be readily accessible and understandable - then ptobably not would be the best answer to your question.

'Traditional' christianity sells salvation and a god-filled eternity for the immortal soul.

Panentheistic humanism (Spongian christianity) attempts to sell the idea brotherly love through the idea of unity the creator (if all are one just how can you not have love and comapssion?)

For most people the WIIFM factor takes over and the insubstantiality of the 'reward for belief' does little to convince. I suspect that in most cases, unless the 'customer' can adopt and internalize some sort of 'spiritual practice' which allows for a realization (i.e. making real) of the 'unity nature of being', or has some other need filled e.g. a sense of meaning and purpose.

[Jonah]

bernee51,

I agree with your analysis of church. And, then there are a few of the hopeful who hope they can beat the odds (I was one). And, then there is very large oddity.

The odd: You have a lot of self actualized Spongians who try to operate within the Church....many of them taking Church leadership positions. And then what do you get? Never ending warfare with non-Spongians. What should be expected out of the mix? Why do Spongians want to run a Church that isn't theirs...and by theirs, I mean reasonably constituted to their beliefs and goals?

Within my old denomination the ELCA, but it's true of the Episcopal as well, I put the question to my friends still in ministry. Why put all this gut wrenching angst into avoiding a split over gay issues? (for one example) Split. Divorce. Divide up into your own houses and go on. But, they won't do that. They are going to fight it out to last bitter end.

I faced this "lie" that gets programmed in seminary. On Bible. Okay, any mainline seminary teaches historicial critical, and that's just the way it is. But. That's not where the bulk of the pew is. Hmmm. What to do? The program seems to have been that you gradually try to pry the pew's conservatism away from them by hook and crook...without actually coming fully out at once where you are coming from. One Sunday, my assistant pastor asked me to sub for her in adult Sunday School and I agreed. The class was a nice group of folks aged 50 to 65. They were garden variety traditional Lutherans who took the Bible seriously as to its literal text. It was a room full of my Mom. I soon found out that they were not happy with the assistant pastor's typical presentation of the Bible. They complained to me that they were taught one thing, but the asst pastor seems to teach another, yet when they ask questions they didn't feel they were getting answers they could understand. So. I swallowed. And I asked them point blank if they had the suspicion that pastors in general were FULLY explaining what they were trained in at seminary...that there is some fudging and spinning going on typically between what is taught in seminary and what gets delivered in the congregation adult Sunday School room? And they replied YES! I said: Okay. You're right. I went on to say that it would be better for us to just disagree on biblical interpretation than to smooth over the differences....and the tragedy in that is that if we were honest about our historical critical method, we could at least demonstrate how, in some cases, it can help a conservative view of a text in some cases. And I gave a few examples of that. And they were really happy with the class. One guy said I was the best Sunday School teacher he ever had. And the next day the asst pastor, who had been a friend, called me up...ranted the the crap out of me for breaking the clergy ranks...and we were friends no more.

Now. The UCC, United Church of Christ seems to have pulled off the Spongian conversion better. They went Spongian rather early and full tilt and openly. They took their losses, and went on. So. Actually, I think they have proved that you can run a Church on Spongianism, if you do it openly and honestly. They have a pretty interesting take on historic Church confessions in that they recognise them as part of (evolutionary) Church tradition, but not as "tests of faith".

Now. The greater purpose of my question as to whether one can run a church on Spongianism is the point: Shouldn't Spongianism be about the business of effecting meaningful constructive change in the world on a wide scale basis? To effect what is actually done in the world?...so the world don't go boom? Yes, it is good for individuals to incorporate a positive spirtuality in their individual lives and affect those around them. But, what of structural, massive structural evil and dysfunction in the world? This was Jesus's problem in regard to Rome. He may have flirted with a traditional messianic mission...he had zealot associates...he was from Zealot Central in lower Galilee...the training ground for anti-Roman al quaida, if you will...but in the end, he tells Peter to his sword away, and goes to the cross...and, builds a community (a church) with structure.

[kayky]

I was assuming if "christ" was discarded, that would also mean "christianity" is no longer a useful term. And then what?

Who is discarding Christ? Does there have to be some supernatural nature to the historical Jesus for the Christ concept to have meaning?

I guess another way to put the question is if we go through the list of things Spong would discard, what is left?

God. A Christ experience. A spiritual path.

No physical resurrection, but a spiritual one.

A resurrection that is available to all as we awaken to the Christ in all of us.

No messiah figure, but a calling for the "church" to be messianic perhaps toward the world.

Acknowledging the mythic nature of a messiah figure does not do away with the messiah figure. Doesn't it make more sense that we as human beings are to be God's conduits to others?

No heaven and hell. No afterlife.

Actually, Spong does believe in an afterlife.

Eternal life is a qualitative concept. And then what is the content of that qualitative eternal life? Love of God & Neighbor, huh?

I don't even understand what you are saying here.

What should this religion be called?

If its path centers on Christian myth, if it practices Christian ritual to attain that path, if it describes that experience in Christian language...what else could it be called but Christianity?

[kayky]

Jonah,

Change is often slow, messy, and painful. "Cutting losses" is not always the most loving approach.

[Jonah]

kay,

What does "Christ" mean to you. I only know of a Jewish concept of it.

But indeed, I like your answer to what to call the religion (Christianity). For you it is as clear as a bell, but there are many in the Christian tradition that have taken the Jewish roots (or asserted roots) very seriously. So even in the patristic era, the famous statement arose: "What does Jerusalem have to do with Athens?" I suppose today it could be "What does Jerusalem have to do with Canterbury?" And it goes to Martin Buber's tract on the differences between Judaism and Christianity which he entitled "Two types of faith".

Now how you conceptualize the Christian myth without Jewish dna, I'll leave to you. All I know from the outside looking in, is that it's a very old issue. The original Jewish Christians, before the divorce, fought Paul as he well records in his letters. They followed the guy around and pestered him. Still, he bolted. And the rest is history. The divorce crystalized. But people don't forget their divorces. Memory has power.

Spiritual path? Jews have had a survival path. Their spirituality is about survival leaning into the promise of the messianic era when Life is no longer under the gun.

If a Christian spiritual path is aimed at the same messianic destination, then the two types of faith can work together.

The question is how do we get the Armageddon obcession of the religious right off the table? THAT is what needs to be replaced.

[kayky]

kay,

What does "Christ" mean to you. I only know of a Jewish concept of it.

The mythic Jesus--both God and man--his Christhood--symbolizes the union of spirit and matter--our unity with God. As a panentheist, I see humanity and creation as an incarnation of God. To awaken to our true identity in God is to have the Christ experience.

But indeed, I like your answer to what to call the religion (Christianity). For you it is as clear as a bell, but there are many in the Christian tradition that have taken the Jewish roots (or asserted roots) very seriously. So even in the patristic era, the famous statement arose: "What does Jerusalem have to do with Athens?" I suppose today it could be "What does Jerusalem have to do with Canterbury?" And it goes to Martin Buber's tract on the differences between Judaism and Christianity which he entitled "Two types of faith".

It sounds to me like Buber got it right.

Now how you conceptualize the Christian myth without Jewish dna, I'll leave to you. All I know from the outside looking in, is that it's a very old issue. The original Jewish Christians, before the divorce, fought Paul as he well records in his letters. They followed the guy around and pestered him. Still, he bolted. And the rest is history. The divorce crystalized. But people don't forget their divorces. Memory has power.

That's very true.

Spiritual path? Jews have had a survival path. Their spirituality is about survival leaning into the promise of the messianic era when Life is no longer under the gun.

I think that is very well put.

If a Christian spiritual path is aimed at the same messianic destination, then the two types of faith can work together.

Absolutely.

The question is how do we get the Armageddon obcession of the religious right off the table? THAT is what needs to be replaced.

Let's hope that "self-fulfilling prophecy" does not have a hand in this. It's just nuts.

[Jonah]

Yes, it is nuts. I would like to use some words that my fellow tribesman Lewis Black would say of it, but it's not polite.

I certainly understand your panentheistic vision. It is what I was taught by my college Relgion teacher who became a good friend. But, the thing I never picked up from him or anyone is how the panentheistic vision hooks up with the etymology of the actual word "christ". Before the messiah was applied to any person or even the concept of a person bearing the title, the word itself had a meaning that preceded the person...from a verb...mashach...to annoint....

....So, annoint for what? So, yes we can understand a God-man myth, but such a myth was created totally outside the Jewish tradition (in Judaism a man, not even the messiah can be God) ...which I think you confirm...but then, why use the Jewish terminology/concept of mashach? Why would it be important to keep the word "christ" if the word means annointed. Maybe another way to ask the question is to ask how is the Christian God-man myth annointing...who is annointed and what are they annointed for?

[kayky]

Yes, it is nuts. I would like to use some words that my fellow tribesman Lewis Black would say of it, but it's not polite.

I love Lewis Black.

I certainly understand your panentheistic vision. It is what I was taught by my college Relgion teacher who became a good friend. But, the thing I never picked up from him or anyone is how the panentheistic vision hooks up with the etymology of the actual word "christ". Before the messiah was applied to any person or even the concept of a person bearing the title, the word itself had a meaning that preceded the person...from a verb...mashach...to annoint....

....So, annoint for what? So, yes we can understand a God-man myth, but such a myth was created totally outside the Jewish tradition (in Judaism a man, not even the messiah can be God) ...which I think you confirm...but then, why use the Jewish terminology/concept of mashach? Why would it be important to keep the word "christ" if the word means annointed. Maybe another way to ask the question is to ask how is the Christian God-man myth annointing...who is annointed and what are they annointed for?

I understand what you are saying. But the Greek word Christ, regardless of its Jewish origins, has been in use by the Church for nearly two thousand years; and I think it would do harm to the tradition to change it now. There's enough confusion in the mix as it is. I'm not sure if there is any sense of "annointing" remaining in the idea. I'll have to give that some thought.

[Jonah]

Yes, I agree with you. It's something to think about. The default position of fundamentalists often seems to be that Christian carries the connotation of various strains of superiority (The Church Lady!)...Dana Carvey was a Lutheran.

On Lewis Black. If you go on youtube and type in Lewis Black Old Testament...you'll get a rip your side out real Jewish take on the OT-NT situation.

[bernee51]

Now. The greater purpose of my question as to whether one can run a church on Spongianism is the point: Shouldn't Spongianism be about the business of effecting meaningful constructive change in the world on a wide scale basis? To effect what is actually done in the world?...so the world don't go boom? Yes, it is good for individuals to incorporate a positive spirituality in their individual lives and affect those around them.

The primary cause of disorder in ourselves (and thus the world at large) is the seeking of reality promised by another; we mechanically follow somebody who will assure us a comfortable spiritual life.
I know it may sound a little glib – but there is truth in the saying – to change the world first change yourself.

But, what of structural, massive structural evil and dysfunction in the world?

What of it? Does this not result from ‘unskilful’ behaviour of individuals or communities of individuals who are want to base their worldview on realities promised by others. Recent and on-going ructions on the West Bank where Jewish settlers claim ownership based on a supposed promise from their god some 1000’s of years ago are a fine example of this.

This was Jesus's problem in regard to Rome. He may have flirted with a traditional messianic mission...he had zealot associates...he was from Zealot Central in lower Galilee...the training ground for anti-Roman al quaida, if you will...but in the end, he tells Peter to his sword away, and goes to the cross...and, builds a community (a church) with structure.

Indeed – and the ‘going to the cross’ is interpreted by many as an act of history and in doing so divisions (unskilful actions) are created.

‘Going to the cross’ interpreted as the realization of the unreality of this ‘self’ that is seeking an external source of reality carries no such baggage.