I'm a Conservative Jew, but much of the underpinnings of Rupert Shortt's essay resonate with me: the heart has its reasons; an encounter with the depths of experience; numinous moments, places, experiences. Anyone who has had numinous experiences, or experienced that which cannot simply be explained by factoids, knows that they have touched something profoundly important, moving and life-changing. Even if they can't explain it to their atheist friends (I don't even try). And but a moment of contemplating the origins of the universe should produce a deep sense of awe and mystery. Even simply sitting in a traditional church or synagogue and hearing the soaring majesty of the music should be enough to stir the soul of anyone who is listening. Rupert and I may be of different faiths, but the link we share is to something greater than ourselves that binds us all together, whether we will it or no.
Appreciate those guest articles too, Ayaan. Yet there are (of course) always certain problems with interpretation in Christianity, depending on where and when the ideas were discussed. When Rupert Shortt writes "Penitent Christians do not (or should not) confess their sins in order to obtain forgiveness. They do so because they are already forgiven", he is not engaging with developments in Bible text criticism of the last 40 or 50 years or so, say since Albert Schweitzer. Evangelicals still largely think along the lines of atonement as something provided in Jesus as the ritual 'sacrifice', an idea based on the assumption that the old testament sacrifices served like pagan sacrifices, where an animal was killed "in place of" human beings. But the Jews never thought of it that way: the sin and trespass offerings in Leviticus and Numbers were clearly designed to deal with 'unwitting' sins - that is sins you did not realize you were committing. (This is comparable to what Paul writes in Romans 7, when Paul also talks about 'doing the things he does not want to do'). Those sacrifices were never a replacement for a particular person, they indicated the condemnation of sin itself. Atonement was about providing a place where God could dwell. This is a more 'liturgical' matter (a matter of love, one could say) not a sacrificial matter. Paul too connects it, not so much to a sinner being atoned, but to the people of God being brought to a clean place. This is also how the well-kown theologian N.T. Wright would put it, for instance (that's the guy who had a very amical discussion together with Tom Holland a while ago).
I'm a Conservative Jew, but much of the underpinnings of Rupert Shortt's essay resonate with me: the heart has its reasons; an encounter with the depths of experience; numinous moments, places, experiences. Anyone who has had numinous experiences, or experienced that which cannot simply be explained by factoids, knows that they have touched something profoundly important, moving and life-changing. Even if they can't explain it to their atheist friends (I don't even try). And but a moment of contemplating the origins of the universe should produce a deep sense of awe and mystery. Even simply sitting in a traditional church or synagogue and hearing the soaring majesty of the music should be enough to stir the soul of anyone who is listening. Rupert and I may be of different faiths, but the link we share is to something greater than ourselves that binds us all together, whether we will it or no.
Appreciate those guest articles too, Ayaan. Yet there are (of course) always certain problems with interpretation in Christianity, depending on where and when the ideas were discussed. When Rupert Shortt writes "Penitent Christians do not (or should not) confess their sins in order to obtain forgiveness. They do so because they are already forgiven", he is not engaging with developments in Bible text criticism of the last 40 or 50 years or so, say since Albert Schweitzer. Evangelicals still largely think along the lines of atonement as something provided in Jesus as the ritual 'sacrifice', an idea based on the assumption that the old testament sacrifices served like pagan sacrifices, where an animal was killed "in place of" human beings. But the Jews never thought of it that way: the sin and trespass offerings in Leviticus and Numbers were clearly designed to deal with 'unwitting' sins - that is sins you did not realize you were committing. (This is comparable to what Paul writes in Romans 7, when Paul also talks about 'doing the things he does not want to do'). Those sacrifices were never a replacement for a particular person, they indicated the condemnation of sin itself. Atonement was about providing a place where God could dwell. This is a more 'liturgical' matter (a matter of love, one could say) not a sacrificial matter. Paul too connects it, not so much to a sinner being atoned, but to the people of God being brought to a clean place. This is also how the well-kown theologian N.T. Wright would put it, for instance (that's the guy who had a very amical discussion together with Tom Holland a while ago).