Matthew's Journal

I described my theology as "other" because I am a Popperian, I don't see how I can be anything else. For those who haven't read Karl Popper, this means that I believe that there is a real world but I can only apprehend it through my own impaired, fallible and prejudiced senses; hence my perception of any reality is subjective and wrong (in some ways). Progress means making it less wrong.

This means inter alia I can't just see the Bible, the creeds or whatever as "things to be believed". They are human attempts (however inspired) to state truths. And that makes answering your last question very difficult. I believe that "sacrifice" is a relevant category for understanding the cross only because the cross completely redefines what sacrifice is. (Btw, if you read the Hebrew Bible you'll see that most of the Jewish sacrifices aren't good pictures for understanding Jesus' death. Look at the Peace Offering in Lev 3. Even the Sin Offering is only for unwitting sin; eg walking over a grave.) And the NT seems to suggest our problem is not so much sin as the sinful context in which we live. The cross is rescue.

The major category I think you miss is the cross as complete self-identification with humanity in its state of bondage to satan. This allows a corresponding identification we can have with the risen Christ. There is an awful lot in Paul (using various bits of imagery) of the idea "he became what we are so that we can be what he is".

I think also it's a powerful reminder that even meaningless suffering can be given meaning and be redeemed, and in that we can even become like the Creator in making something new and good.