Blood

[corinthpastorbob]

I'm not too fond of blood. I would have made a terrible doctor, and sometimes my queasiness isn't too good for pastoral work either. I don't know that I could have done what Dr. Laniak did.

I also think that the evangelical tradition probably emphasizes blood more than the Bible does. To be sure, there are frequent and key passages on the centrality of blood in the sacrificial system of the old covenant, and on the blood of Christ. But under the new covenant the blood is no longer a constant physical and literal reminder - it is a once-and-done completed sacrifice to be remembered and proclaimed.

In retrospect, I'm surprised at the popularity of "The Passion of the Christ" among evangelicals. Its fascination with the physical suffering of Christ was more Roman Catholic (where relics of Christ's suffering, crucifixes, and transubstantiation are part of the tradition) than biblical. The gospels are content simply to say, "they crucified him." Mel Gibson's film overplayed the physical suffering, if that is possible (I counted 100 lashes of the whip instead of 39) - which is not the primary point of his suffering. It is his sacrificial substitution. The biblical narrative is not designed to evoke pity (as "Passion" does), but faith.

And sacrifice. So I find Tim Laniak's story a beautiful balance that makes the point graphically and powerfully. It is about blood, yes, but it's ultimately about laying down life - Jesus Christ's for mine and mine for whomever, whatever, whenever, wherever he calls me.