 April 2011
As we enter the last weeks of the Lenten season I want to reflect on the meaning of the Cross of Christ and Christian Atonement theology. As I do so, I want to deal with problems I have with some of the contemporary expressions of atonement theology, some of my “pet peeves” if you will, then say a few words at the end of each “pet peeve” about what I think an authentic New Testament atonement theology should include.
Before I start, let me point out that there are five atonement images in the New Testament, according to Joel Greene in Recovering the Scandal of the Cross, “all borrowed from the public life of the ancient Mediterranean world: the court of law (e.g. justification), the world of commerce (e.g., redemption), personal relationships (e.g., reconciliation), worship (e.g., sacrifice) and the battleground (e.g., triumph over evil).” All five are helpful and balance each other as we come to understand God’s saving act through Jesus’ death and resurrection. The problem is when we get “out of balance” with our theology, as I believe we have in popular evangelical Christianity today.
Historically, at least four models or explanations of the atonement were developed from these Biblical images: 1. Christ as victor over the power of sin and death (over Satan) 2. Satisfaction of Debt 3. Moral Influence (we are led into the way of sacrificial love) 4. Penal Substitution (Christ bears the punishment for our sins).
Many scholars believe the “Christ as Victor” model dominated Christian theology in the early centuries of the church. But while “Christ as Victor” was the framework for early atonement theology, the other images of atonement were certainly a part of the reflections. Today, the Penal Substitution model, along with the Satisfaction of Debt model, seems to dominate popular evangelical Christian thought, often without the balance of the other models and images. Plus, these models, in the way they are articulated today, often fail to capture the full meaning of the theologians who first developed them. All this is at the root of my “pet peeves”.
Pet Peeve #1
The notion that God’s wrath needs to be appeased, satisfied, i.e. God demands a sacrifice for forgiveness. (A common view that combines the Satisfaction of Debt and the Penal Substitution models)
First, in the Old Testament, atonement sacrificial ritual is a gift of a gracious God for Israel to experience God’s forgiveness in and through its worship. Some contemporary expressions of atonement sound like God is only truly gracious and forgiving after the crucifixion of Christ. But, God’s nature has always been gracious and forgiving. The point of the sacrifice was not to somehow appease God’s taste for burnt flesh or desire for the aroma of the smoke which rose to heaven. It had nothing to do with someone or something needing to die in order to appease. The point is for Israel to experience and celebrate God’s forgiveness. Also, the point of “ransom” and “redemption” in the Old Testament was not to pay someone off, but rather to lead people to freedom. The metaphor of redemption is used to describe Israel being set free from Egypt. Yet Pharaoh is not paid a ransom. The metaphorical point is to describe Israel being set free, not Pharaoh (or anybody else) being appeased. In this imagery from the realm of mercantile exchange the emphasis is on those “purchased for freedom” rather than on those they are “purchased from”.
In the New Testament, God offers God’s self in and through Christ incarnationally. God in Christ offers himself in a self-emptying (kenosis) sacrificial way through his life as well as his death. The Incarnation of God in Christ is a gift of love and grace. The language of atoning sacrifice in the New Testament emphasizes God’s love, not God’s wrath needing to be appeased. Redemption language in the New Testament, like the Old Testament, emphasizes the purpose for which we were bought, namely service to Christ and the Kingdom of God, not who gets paid.
And, it is important to note, Jesus’ life as much as his death matter to our salvation. And another note here, medieval theologian, Anselm, to whom the origin of the Substitution Model is attributed, does not focus on the appeasement of an angry, wrathful, bloodthirsty God. Instead, his focus is on a loving God and a son obedient to the way of God in a way we are not. The point of substitution is not that “someone has to die”. Rather, the point is that God is reconciling humanity to God’s self. This, by the way is John Wesley’s understanding of atonement. As we will see below, an incarnational theology alongside the Subtitution Model is essential. Otherwise God comes off looking like a sadist.
Pet Peeve # 2
One often hears language of God, “out of Love”, giving up God’s son to an agonizing death, to which Jesus is obedient. God is pictured, unintentionally, as a child abuser. The cross event is pictured as some sadomasochistic drama. (Drawing from the Penal Substitution model)
A more appropriate view is that out of love, God offers God’s child to the world to live incarnationally, i.e. to live and love and sacrifice and heal and teach and yes, along with the rest of us, to die. The ultimate expression of incarnation is the cross. But language such as “God gives his son to die”, would be better stated “God gives God’s son as a living sacrifice”. Jesus’ obedience is not to a sadistic demand to suffer and die. Rather, as Joel Greene puts it in Recovering the Scandal of the Cross, “In Jesus’ commitment (obedience) to the divine, redemptive purpose, in his solidarity with God’s project and with those suffering in a world hostile to God’s purpose, Jesus encountered pain in the form of a Roman cross”.
Pet Peeve # 3
We often hear “Jesus died for our sins” (combining the Satisfaction of Debt and the Penal Substitution models) with little connection to Jesus dying with us. In the movie “The Passion of the Christ” by Mel Gibson, Jesus’ agony is pictured as worse than the agony of others and somehow singled out. There is a sense of his dying for us, but not dying with us, i.e. devoid of incarnational importance. Yet thousands died a similar death at the hands of the Romans. While Jesus certainly suffers for us, it is crucial to a full understanding of atonement that he also suffers with us. This incarnational reality, along with the power of the resurrection, reconciles the world to God in a new creation.
Pet Peeve # 4
Some contemporary atonement theologies seem to view the cross of Christ as disconnected to our calling to carry the cross, i.e. that we get to bask in the glory of the forgiveness of God, through the blood of Christ (if we accept Christ), but the cross says little, if anything, about the way we live. In this view, the point of Jesus’ death is to appease God’s wrath (the Penal Substitution model) rather than to show the way to life. This view divorces the cross from the resurrection, at least in so far as cross-resurrection, as a motif in the Christian way of living, becomes more “cross as appeasement, with the resurrection cancelling the way of sacrifice for a new way of victory ( thus, leading to a theology of triumphalism rather than a theology of the cross).
An authentic atonement theology, it seems to me, views the resurrection as affirming the way of the cross, and that the way of sacrificial love is victorious over the way of sin and death and sin and death’s allies (war, greed, hate, etc.). An authentic view would take seriously the call to carry our cross, to die and rise with Christ…using some of Paul’s themes in his two letters to the Corinthians… (Which combine the Moral Influence and the Christ as Victor models)
- die to worldly power and rise to a life of power grounded in humility and love.
- die to sexual licentiousness and hedonism and rise to a purer life, respecting ourselves, others, and God.
- die to elitism and rise to egalitarian community.
- die to spiritual arrogance and rise to living by grace and love.
- die to self absorption and rise to a shared, generous, and grateful way of living.
- die to the unforgiving life and rise to the way of forgiveness, reconciliation, and peace.
This is the way, the way of Jesus’ life (the Moral Influence model), the way of the cross, the way made victorious through the power of the resurrection (the Christ as Victor model). It may be folly to the world (1 Corinthians 1:23), but it is the only way to truly live.
It seems to me that we need a broader understanding of atonement than the less-than-adequate versions of the Satisfaction of Debt and Penal Substitution models that dominate the pop-Christian scene today. Only then will we have a more wholistic understanding of God’s gracious, saving act in and through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus the Messiah.
.
Shalom,
District Superintendent
Gulf Central District of the United Methodist Church
1498 Rosery Rd. E., Largo, FL 33770-1656
Phone: 727-585-1207
email: DS-GC@ FLUMC.ORG
|
