home straight - abstract metaphor

What am I meant to say in an abstract?

...almost there...

‘The formal challenge for atonement theory in postmodernity consists in justifying the move from many metaphors to one, and from the one metaphor to a single concept'

In models of the atonement, the domination of a single metaphor is accused of violently reducing the other to the same. The possibility considered here is that the creative and relational properties of metaphors may enable a constructive synthesis rather than a destructive reduction. Such a view seeks to do justice to the power and truthfulness of language rather than removing metaphorical language from relating us to reality. It seeks to humbly hear God’s word on the atonement.

The issue at hand is how the diversity of biblical imagery can speak together about the single beautiful work of the atonement. The “kaleidoscopic” view demands the use of multiple metaphors, and new metaphors, in order to effectively connect people to the cross through the communication process. The worth of an atonement metaphor is measured by its ability to be understood and emotionally connect with its audience. The “kaleidoscopic” view makes particular claims about the unity and diversity of biblical metaphors in relation to the actuality of the atonement. In order to explore this the “kaleidoscopic” view’s treatment of metaphors is to be presented followed by some previously offered reviews. The nature of metaphor and the particular biblical images of the atonement are then to be examined, as well as particular biblical passages which may provide direction for doctrinal synthesis. A conclusion can then be drawn about the “kaleidoscopic” view’s treatment of biblical atonement metaphors, and hence the fruitfulness of pursuing the “kaleidoscopic” view of the atonement.

The conclusion of this work is that the “kaleidoscopic” view is underdeveloped in its logical argument, treatment of metaphor and wrestling with biblical atonement metaphors. For proponents of “kaleidoscopic” views the weight placed on the significance of the audience overwhelms the ineffable reality of the atonement. While claiming to provide an alternative to models such as penal substitutionary atonement, the “kaleidoscopic” view is inadequately presented to provide a substantial atonement theology.

Airing my dirty laundry

Do you think that the following discussion is invalid or too harsh in a discussion of the "kaleidoscope" view of the atonement as presented by Holmes, Green and Baker?

A “Kaleidoscopic” View: Is This An Appropriate Title?
In reviewing the “kaleidoscopic” view’s interaction with metaphors it is also pertinent to discuss the metaphor in the view’s title. The view is not literally a kaleidoscope and so it may be asked in what way is the view “kaleidoscopic”?
It has been seen so far that the “kaleidoscope” view emphasises the multifaceted nature of the biblical proclamation of the atonement. It is this multifaceted nature of a kaleidoscopic image which appears to be the primary source of the view’s name.
Additionally, in a kaleidoscope often the many elements can be constantly rearranged to give a new view of the same object. The view through a kaleidoscope is not consistent over time. This aspect also appears to be true of the “kaleidoscopic” view as it allows constant rearrangement and creation of new panes. The missional strength of the “kaleidoscope” view is its flexibility to adapt to new situations as it communicates with the audience.
Another aspect which appears common, between the “kaleidoscope” view and an actual kaleidoscope, is the placement of a filter between the object and the perceiver. Through a kaleidoscope, a viewer sees the world through a particular pane of glass. A kaleidoscope places a filter between the viewer and direct perception of the object. The “kaleidoscope” view filters the inaccessible reality as it presents it to the viewers. The “kaleidoscope” view has an ineffable cross to proclaim to the world and so draws on multifaceted presentation of metaphors as illustrations appropriate to the audience.
Also, a kaleidoscope provides a beautiful image. The “kaleidoscope” view claims this for itself, though it does not give objective grounds for this claim to beauty. A kaleidoscope provides images controlled by the viewer. A kaleidoscope is turned and changed according to the desires of the viewer. If the filter provides an undesirable image it can be changed. The view through a kaleidoscope changes either by the moving of the kaleidoscope itself or a changing the object being viewed. This aspect appears to be also true of the “kaleidoscopic” view of the atonement. The greatest measure of the validity of metaphors in the “kaleidoscopic” view is the fruitfulness in the audience’s salvation. Although Holmes, Green and Baker all wish to impose an unchanging unified systematic understanding, it appears inconsistent with the other aspects of being “kaleidoscopic”. The whole of a kaleidoscope is directed by the viewer. Even an unchanging unified systematic understanding in the “kaleidoscopic” view is wielded by the audience. Thus, there is no reliable perception of the object but only a view controlled by the viewer. This final aspect appears transferable and gives reason for the title of the view.
These four aspects, being multifaceted, continually changing, providing only indirect access and subjective beauty being controlled by the viewer, appear to be valid metaphorical mapping of meaning between a kaleidoscope and the “kaleidoscopic” view. They thus give good reasons for the title “kaleidoscopic”.
Holmes, Green and Baker may object to the range of correspondence seen between the “kaleidoscopic” view and a kaleidoscope. Perhaps the metaphor has been pushed too far. If their view wished only to emphasis that atonement theology has many elements as expressed in the biblical metaphors then the title “kaleidoscopic” would not be necessary. It may be asked, what makes “kaleidoscopic” the best title? A basket full of dirty laundry has many elements continually changing, giving indirect information about the wearer and ultimately controlled by the washer. But the “dirty laundry” view of the atonement is not nearly as attractive as the “kaleidoscope” view.
The implicit claim from the title is that the amazing beauty of the atonement is what is trying to be grasped by this view. But its success in expressing the beauty of the atonement seems to derive entirely from the viewer, the audience, rather than any underlying reality of the atonement. The title “kaleidoscopic” view is valid only in so far as the proponents perceive the atonement to be beautiful from their perspective. It is valid as a title subjectively attributed without grounding in any reality of the atonement. This is the result of the “kaleidoscope” view’s treatment of metaphor, and the place of biblical metaphors in particular. The inaccessible profundity of the atonement, the wondrous cross, which has driven these proponents to new metaphor upon new metaphor provides no beauty in this view. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

"Kaleidoscopic" or "Dirty Laundry"? What do you think?

tasty salad

Having been a fan of rocket, pear, pecorino, walnut salad I was pleased to find that the baby spinach, orange, feta, macadamia nut salad from taste.com.au was also very tasty.

http://www.taste.com.au/recipes/14384/baby+spinach+orange+macadamia+salad

without which noone will see the Lord

I think my bias is more towards laziness than zealousness. My tendency is towards the laxity of freedom than the diligence of service.
There is a word to be spoken to those who think that their moral purity makes them acceptable to God. But I am far from them.
Studying Hebrews I am reminded of how amazing it is to have a new covenant and new promises that really get rid of our sin. This is not the pre-game show, the warm up match. Jesus is the real deal. He's entered heaven itself and sat down at the right hand of God. We now approach the throne of grace with confidence. And I'm so thankful for the assurance and joy that comes from knowing my sins are forgiven.
But I'm also reminded of the response of holiness which flows from belonging to God as one of His holy people. I'm not sure that I can characterise my day to day life as "striving" after holiness. The pleasure of my heavenly Father is not always upmost in my decision making about a particular course of action.
Being a zealot has many negative connotations. But I think I want to be known as someone zealous in my love for God and pleasing Him. I want to strive for holiness and love God's people in all purity as we're gathered into a heavenly assembly.

I don't understand

I'm thankful for friends and fun and time together. It's nice to celebrate.
But I still don't understand what's going on.

generic invites

I like designing things when I get a chance. And I like parties when there's a good reason to celebrate. Though ripping off other people's ideas is a lot easier than coming up with my own.

Green and Baker Reflection

Green and Baker criticise one-eyed trite Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA) which neglects the specificity and diversity of the New Testament, disfigures God’s character by portraying him as wrathful, divides the trinity against itself by saying the Father punishes the Son, and neglects the transformation of the Christian life by discipleship presenting an anemic salvation. These are heavy criticisms.

Green and Baker are motivated by the power of salvation for all people, and wanting the cross to be proclaimed truthfully and effectively in a missionally contextualised manner. They helpfully identify the sociohistorical context of Christ and his apostolic interpreters. They also rightly point out that an event is not in itself self-interpreting. [1] The significance of Jesus’ death was communicated in particular contexts using imagery from the world of the speakers and
hearers. [2] Green and Baker thus bring to light a cultural gulf which must be bridged if the cross is to be preached today.

In light of this they claim PSA has distorted the specificity of the shame based Roman crucifixion through the individualistic guilt based lens of the twentieth century western world. [3] They rightly observe that all proclamations are culturally bound. [4] But their claim that, ‘writers of the books of the New Testament were not concerned to set forth the content of the faith for all time, and what they have written does not provide us with systems of theological thought’ seems to underestimate the normative place of God’s Word in providing systematic reflections on God’s work and overestimate the importance of contextualised communication. [5]

Wrath and demands for violence as a distortion of God’s character are a wide spread charge from postmodernity, feminist theologians and proponents of a non-violent atonement such as Weaver. [6] Green and Baker agree with this charge and here contend that wrath is not a personal trait of God but rather a holy response to sin, his moral integrity presently at work in the world, as depicted in Romans 1.18-32. [7] Further, following Goldingay, Green and Baker deny that OT sacrifice is offered in answer to God’s wrath and retributive justice. [8] Opponents object and present an exegetical case that wrath is rightfully attributed to God in a personal manner, demonstrating the personal offence and personal response to sin. [9]

Green and Baker acknowledge that they are attacking a popular level presentation of PSA. [10] But they suggest that the possibility of such distortions of God’s character point to underlying problems with any system which relies on God’s wrath. [11] Instead Green and Baker seek to highlight the source of the atonement in the love of God. [12] The arguments presented against PSA depicting the angry Father punishing the compassionate Son are contended in a similarly exegetical manner against a popular portrayal. [13] The development of PSA amid a sensitive Trinitarian theology may offer answers to many of Green and Baker’s suggestions. [14] But again, they suggest that the possibility of distortion means PSA should be abandoned as an understanding of the atonement.

Green and Baker argue that a multifaceted proclamation of the cross is necessary in light of the ineffable depth of the atonement, the plethora of depictions in the NT, the need to address the atonement to all people in all places at all times. [15] Such a position demands that an understanding of the pluriform message of the NT atonement is grasped and then translated for the present audience in a multifaceted way. [16] Green and Baker suggest there are four key themes of the atonement which any metaphor seeking to illustrate the atonement must grasp. These are: the human predicament, need and helplessness; the transformative saving imperative embedded in the cross; the gracious love of God as his primary character; and the universal applicability of the atonement. [17] Such an appreciation of the richness of the atonement and its key message should prompt a creative and relevant preaching of the cross, and leave behind the damage of PSA. [18]

Green and Baker’s strengths include their desire to see the cross proclaimed to all, their emphasis on the transforming power of the cross, their desire to honour the biblical understanding and portrayal of the atonement, and also their polemic insistence that PSA can be and is being distorted at a popular level. However, the strength of their arguments is weak when placed alongside an exegetically sound and theologically nuanced understanding of the triune God, his person and work. Green and Baker are being challenged in their exegetical grounding of God’s character and the sacrificial system. Their observation of multifaceted proclamation in the New Testament doesn’t of itself demand an unintegrated multifaceted understanding of these many aspects. Their own systematic synthesis speaks against various metaphorically described aspects of the atonement simply being held in isolation from one another and picked up in individual missional metaphors. The strength of Recovering the Scandal of the Cross is its call for creative missional contextualised proclamation. [19] But there is a distinct weakness as Green and Baker have not worked hard to show that their atonement theory is any richer or more multifaceted that those they’ve sought to discard.

Bibliography of Works Cited

Carson, Don. ‘Atonement in Romans 3.21-26’ pages 119 – 139 in The Glory of the Atonement. Edited by Hill and James. Downers Grove: IVP, 2004.

Green, Joel and Baker, Mark. Recovering the Scandal of the Cross: Atonement in New Testament and Contemporary Contexts. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2000.

Green, Joel. ‘Must We Imagine the Atonement in Penal Substitutionary Terms? Questions, Caveats and a Plea’ pages 153 – 171 in The Atonement Debate. Edited by Derek Tidball, David Hilborn and Justin Thacker. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008.

Vanhoozer, Kevin. ‘The Atonement in Postmodernity: Guilt, Goats and Gifts’ in The Glory of the Atonement. Edited by Hill and James. Downers Grove: IVP, 2004.

Weaver, J. Denny. The Non Violent Atonement. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001.

Williams, Garry. ‘Penal Substitution: A Response To Recent Criticisms’ pages 172 – 191 in The Atonement Debate. Edited by Derek Tidball, David Hilborn and Justin Thacker. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008.

Other Works Consulted

Baker, Mark (editor). Proclaiming the Scandal of the Cross: Contemporary Images of the Atonement. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006.

Jeffery, Steve, Ovey, Mike and Sach, Andrew. Pierced for our Transgressions: Rediscovering the Glory of Penal Substitution, Nottingham: IVP, 2007.

---

[1] Joel Green and Mark Baker, Recovering the Scandal of the Cross: Atonement in New Testament and Contemporary Contexts (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2000), 16-18.

[2] Green, Recovering, 99-107.

[3] Green, Recovering, chapter 6.

[4] Green, Recovering, 20-23.

[5] Green, Recovering, 87.

[6] Green, Recovering, 91. Kevin Vanhoozer, ‘The Atonement in Postmodernity: Guilt, Goats and Gifts’ in The Glory of the Atonement (eds. Hill and James; Downers Grove: IVP, 2004), 372. J. Denny Weaver, The Non Violent Atonement , (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001).

[7] Green, Recovering, 91.

[8] Joel Green, ‘Must we Imagine the Atonement in Penal Substitutionary Terms? Questions, Caveats and a Plea’ in The Atonement Debate (eds. Derek Tidball, David Hilborn and Justin Thacker; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008), 161.

[9] Don Carson, ‘Atonement in Romans 3.21-26’ in The Glory of the Atonement (eds. Hill and James; Downers Grove: IVP, 2004), 135. See also Steve Jeffery, Mike Ovey and Andrew Sach Pierced for our Transgressions: Rediscovering the Glory of Penal Substitution (Nottingham: IVP, 2007).

[10] Green, ‘Must we Imagine the Atonement in Penal Substitutionary Terms? Questions, Caveats and a Plea’,159. Quoting Recovering 30

[11] Green, Recovering, 92.

[12] Green, Recovering, 113.

[13] Green, Recovering, 92.

[14] Garry Williams, ‘Penal Substitution: A Response To Recent Criticisms’ in The Atonement Debate (eds. Derek Tidball, David Hilborn and Justin Thacker; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008), 178-181.

[15] Green, Recovering, 98-99.

[16] Green, Recovering, 23.

[17] Green, Recovering, 112-114.

[18] Green, Recovering, 114-115.

[19] Green, Recovering, 114.

Barnslig

Barnslig the stuffed blue giraffe hijacks the afternoon of work.

Given my fuzzy headedness trying to understand literary theory about metaphors and their function I think my arguments about the significance of the rhetorical illustrative conception of metaphor in the kaleidoscopic view of the atonement may make as much sense as stuffed blue giraffes at this point.

Bah.

teaspoon's retreat

One plus one is two
I like to add I do
Because it's always true
No matter what I do
One plus one is two
I can feel sad and blue
The entire world may fall apart in a walloping mess of chaos
But one plus one is two

why you shouldn't employ a woman on staff at your church

This is a word to my brothers who are or may be responsible for employing a staff team in a church context. This is a reason why you shouldn't employ a woman, or more particularly, a reason you shouldn't use to employ a woman. The reason and logic runs something like, 'I can't/shouldn't care for the women in my congregation. Therefore, I should employ a woman.' I don't think the conclusion is false. I think your flock will benefit greatly from having a godly, well trained, faithful female serving them full time in a paid capacity. I think it will glorify God and be well worth any investment you make.
My issue is with a co-conclusion or faulty logic which may, though not necessarily, lie behind such thinking. The faulty co-conclusion is that the male pastor of the congregation can absolve himself of responsibility for the pastoral care of half his congregation by employing a woman. It may be that you're not the person to meet with her in an ongoing pastoral relationship of deep emotional divulgence and intimacy. As a godly may concerned for being above reproach that is certainly the case. But employing a woman on staff is not a silver bullet to solve all the pastoral issues among the women of your church. Nor even is she a silver bullet to solve all your pastoral complexities with the women of your church.
Letting the body serve one another does not absolve the leadership from leading. Letting your congregation care for one another does not mean you leave half the flock to wander without you. Jesus' welcoming and generous relationships with women demonstrate that being godly doesn't mean cutting yourself off from relationships with women. I think that a complementarian view of men and women means there is a positive relationship rather than a reductionistic division between us.
If employing a woman is a safety blanket for you to say you're caring for women without having to deal with them then man up and get your head on straight. Don't use a woman on staff as a smoke screen for division. Work out how you can care for your flock as men and women together. That care may well include employing a woman. But don't employ her for the wrong reason. If you do so you're doing a dis-service to her, your flock, yourself and your Lord.

Let's serve each other in love for the common good.

^{1 Corinthians 12
4} There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit distributes them. ⁵ There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. ⁶ There are different kinds of working, but in all of them and in everyone it is the same God at work.
⁷ Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. ⁸ To one there is given through the Spirit a message of wisdom, to another a message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, ⁹ to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, ¹⁰ to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues. ¹¹ All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he distributes them to each one, just as he determines.
¹² Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ. ¹³ For we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink. ¹⁴ Even so the body is not made up of one part but of many.
¹⁵ Now if the foot should say, "Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body," it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. ¹⁶ And if the ear should say, "Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body," it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. ¹⁷ If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? ¹⁸ But in fact God has placed the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. ¹⁹ If they were all one part, where would the body be? ²⁰As it is, there are many parts, but one body.
²¹ The eye cannot say to the hand, "I don't need you!" And the head cannot say to the feet, "I don't need you!" ²² On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, ²³ and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, ²⁴ while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has put the body together, giving greater honor to the parts that lacked it, ²⁵ so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. ²⁶ If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.