about forgiveness

about forgiveness
(erin emenheiser, 4/24/08)

yesterday i ate
the strawberries—
your strawberries—
that i saw in the fridge.

it's just that—
they looked so—
i didn't mean to—
i'm sorry.


when the time is right
i promise
to buy you
another quart.

help my unbelief

this morning i was nonchalantly singing through Great is Thy Faithfulness when i stumbled across this line from the chorus: "All I have needed Thy hand hath provided; great is Thy faithfulness, Lord, unto me!"

it struck me how untrue this line is. no--all i have needed, i bought at the grocery store. or all i have needed my parents gave me. i can't honestly say that i depend upon God for any of my material possessions. not in the same way i depend upon my own cash flow.

this begs the question: do we, as affluent Americans, really understand what it might mean for God to provide for all our physical needs?

i say no. but i bet Mike Yankoski, who spent several months living among the homeless in several U.S. cities, understands what it means. his provisions--namely, food--came from others' generosity, and in our culture there's a sense of shame and vulnerability in receiving handouts.

Yankoski writes this: "Begging is hard. It's something you expect hungry dogs to do, but not men and women made in God's image. The minute you put out your hand, or open your guitar case, it feels like you're writing 'failure' and 'weakness' all over yourself. You're telling everyone who comes by, 'I am unable.' The message blares up and down the sidewalk, and across multiple lanes of traffic. And the message doesn't stop screaming until you pull back your hand, or close up your case." this is not some scholar's understanding of what somebody once reported to him--this is a first-hand account.

i can't even imagine.

space to think it through

several recent events/conversations have forced me to seriously consider what i believe about the atonement.

it's definitely not "thank you for the cross" (which is the equivalent of saying, "thank you, God, for killing your son." my God is not a divine child abuser.)

it's not "Jesus, you gave your life for me, therefore i will give my life for you" in an even exchange transaction.

it's more like this: thank you, God, for redemption, for sending your son to redeem us--your creations, your children--who have ignored our brothers' and sisters' needs emotionally, socially, economically, materially, spiritually, etc. we are far from how you have created us to live. but through the prophets, through Jesus, through the early church, you have shown us what you desire of us, how you desire us to live.


the thing is, in my "field" of "work" (or simply my area of interest), substitutionary atonement is not at all useful. "Jesus died for me--wow! i should spend all my time praising him" in an entirely vertical relationship. this says nothing of redemption or redistribution or our responsibility to love our brothers and sisters.

i find it much more helpful to consider the entirety of God's story--from creation to the fall and all the way through redemption. this gives me concrete examples of how God intended for God's creation to live in harmony, in shalom. certainly plead the case of the widow and the fatherless and care for the alien in your land. this is how i have to understand the atonement; nothing else moves me to care for others.