I think perhaps the biggest practical theological "failure" among the membership of the Church is that
too many members have bought into the idea that the Atonement is an
event - or the time period between two events: Gethsemane through
Golgotha.
I see the concept much more expansively than that. I see it
as the entire core of Mormon theology - the idea that God can take
something that is not "like God" (intelligence - whatever that means)
and recreate God from it. The Atonement is the Alpha and the Omega -
the beginning through the end. It's taking us from a state of not being
"at-one" and, through a creative process, making us "at-one". It's
"eternal life" - from start to finish. It's the entire purpose of
creation and existence.
With that foundation, I accept totally
Jesus of Nazareth's role as Savior and Redeemer - again, since I can
view it in any way that makes sense to me. The view of "atonement" I
described above is too expansive to be contained within one interpretive
model; it bursts the bonds of that sort of intellectual constraint, if
you will, and can be described by differing people with differing
experiences and differing paradigms. The concept itself can be the core
of multiple world religions, with just the details differing (including
the detail in question here - the identity of the central figure in it
all).
The Mormon view of the atonement is a fascinating mixture
of Christian terminology and East Asian myticism and ultimate
destination. It's not one or two events to which centuries of Christian
dogma limited it. I can accept it totally, particularly since it still
amazes me sometimes when I get a glimpse of something new now and
again.
Top Heavy
2 weeks ago
No comments:
Post a Comment