IN WHICH: We explore atonement

A friend of mine recently posted a video that's pretty interesting - thought I'd share it to give context before getting deeper into this exploration.  It comes from www.fallingplates.com - it's an interesting evangelism website and the video itself uses some pretty compelling visuals and metaphors to explore the relationship we are invited into with Christ and the way in which Christ brings us back into relationship with God:

 

 

As I said - my friend shared this with me and she asked my thoughts.  Naturally, my seminary brain kicked in.  I said it's a good video, but commented on its use of penal atonement theology in talking about the crucifixion.  In my conversation with this friend, I realized that this is one of those things we talk about in seminary, but don't really talk about much in the "outside" world, so I decided that rather than try to handle this in a small post on Facebook, I'd do a larger exploration of "atonement theology" and put it on here.  Feel free to explore alongside me - I'll post some general links for further reading as we go along.

 

In Christian thought, we all generally recognize and more or less agree that, through Jesus, humanity is offered the gift of God's grace and salvation: we are made "at one" with God again: at-one-ment - get it?

But the place where there's some difference in thought and theology is in the HOW of that at-one-ment.  Jesus restores us to "right standing" with God - but how is that restoration accomplished? 

 

Does the act of "atonement" happen on the cross?  If so, does it happen *only* on the cross in that moment when Christ dies?

 

Your sins: nailed here

 

 If not, then what are the alternatives and what would something like that look like?

Guess I don't need THIS anymore...

 

Theologians have wrestled with this question now for centuries, and over time there have been quite a few models and theories presented that attempt to address the question of how the events of the Gospel affect our atonement to God.

 

I'm going to take some time to explore these models - since this might get to be a longer blog post, I'm probably going to turn this into a longer, multi-part series.

 

Let's start with the most familiar, and probably the most popular of the models out there:

Satisfaction / Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement

 

 

I want to introduce you to a man named Anselm - he's an important figure in this conversation:

 

 

 Anselm was a really smart guy - he's considered the father of scholasticism, so if you want to get down to basics, we have to recognize that we probably wouldn't even be having this exploration without him.

 

Before Anselm came around, the Church Fathers had been teaching a model of atonement theory that we will explore more later - we call this the "Moral Influence" theory.  In a nutshell, this theory basically teaches that the primary purpose of Jesus' life and ministry was to bring about a positive, moral change to his First Century Palestinian context and to the Jewish religion.  Jesus' outrageous martyrdom and ministry were a catalyst to start the Christian movement - a movement that rekindled the covenant relationship between God and God's people and accomplished God's purposes of extending that relationship to the entire world.

 

But Anselm wasn't really satisfied with this answer - Jesus simply as a positive moral change in the world through the Christian movement really didn't go far enough for Anselm.  Humanity's sin is far more damaging, destructive, and pervasive than any "moral influence" can really go to heal.  In fact, as Anselm saw it, the sin of humanity was so great that it took away honor from God.  In other words, since God is our creator, God is due all the honor that we can possibly give God.  But because "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23), God is denied the honor that is due God by God's own creation.  This creates a serious imbalance in the relationship between God and humanity.

 

It's a pretty economical approach to atonement.  We've put ourselves deep in the hole with God and we've built up a pretty bad deficit of the honor that is due to our Creator.  We're so far in the red that God has every right to foreclose on us - if we can't repay the honor due God, then God must punish us.

The problem, of course, is that we can't repay God the honor due to God.  We've built up too great a deficit over thousands and thousands of years.  Even if someone were born today who lived an absolutely flawless life, the honor they gave to God through their life wouldn't be enough to settle the debt between God and humanity.  Even if we traded in 50 Mr. Rogers', 60 Mother Teresa's, and 70 Martin Luther King, Jr.'s, we'd barely be scratching the surface.  

 

The only way the scales balance is by Jesus entering the scene, becoming God incarnate, living a perfect life, and then sacrificing that life for humanity.  By doing all of these things, Jesus pays God the honor that God is due and then some.  And because the debt is paid to the point of surplus, then Jesus is kind enough to let us benefit from that surplus.

Sounds familiar so far, right?  We've probably heard a lot of this in our Sunday School classes, from the pulpits, or from the preachers on TV.  There's some of that in the falling plates video.

Now let me introduce you to another pretty important guy:  John Calvin

 

Calvin is one of the significant "fathers" of the Reformed tradition, which is the main place where the penal substitution theory of atonement came about.

 

Where Anselm was looking at balance sheets and ledger lines for atonement, the Reformation took things a step further and a lot more seriously.  God wasn't just dealing with lost honor when it comes to the atonement; this was a matter of justice itself.

 

Now we start to come to more familiar territory - God is a just and righteous God.  Since "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God," then all must also face God's justice for their sins.  And turning back to our good friend, Paul, as he writes to the church in Rome, "the wages of sin is death." (Romans 6:23)  Our sins put us directly on God's chopping block - no matter how large, how small they are, we sin: we die.  Pretty simple.

 

But hold on: we know that God isn't a kind of God who sits up in heaven throwing down lightning bolts at us when we mess up!   Scripture tells us that not only is God a righteous and a just God; God is also a loving God: God is love. (1 John 4:8)  So how does a loving God still administer justice to a sinful people?

The answer: Jesus

Pictured: the diagram in just about every religious tract ever printed.

Jesus Christ, by virtue of being both God and Human, and by way of living a completely sinless life, enters into the world in order to stand in for humanity, to take God's punishment on humanity's behalf, and to satisfy God's need for justice.  Instead of us on the chopping block, Jesus stands in our place, and we're put on an even keel once again.

These are images that we see in scripture - the temple system itself was based somewhat on this structure: by sacrificing an animal in place of yourself, you make amends for your sins and are put in right relationship with God.  The Passover (or Paschal) lamb was viewed in a very similar fashion - it was sacrificed so that the people of Israel might be passed over by the final plague of God against the Egyptians.  And so this imagery carries over into the Gospels and into the letters.

 

Speaking of tracts...

 

This is pretty much the familiar formula that we see in contemporary mainstream Protestant and Protestant-influenced Christianity.  It gets printed in tracts, it's the focus of the messages preached during Christian music festivals, at church camps, and during altar calls across the world.  It's been condensed down into systems like the "Romans Road" tool for evangelism so that you can use nothing but the book of Romans to "lead a person to salvation."  Many people have come to Christ through this understanding of atonement and have gone on to participate in the church, doing incredible things in the name of Christ.

 

So then... why do I say that I'm critical of it?  What's wrong with this model of atonement?

A Nice Place to Visit, but I wouldn't want to live there.

Take a look at that illustration from the tract above one more time, and then read this post from PZ Myers in his blog, Odious Christianity:

Whoa, hang on there. How is justice served by punishing an innocent? So, with this judge, if I get a parking ticket I could get out of it by bringing in a baby and chopping off a finger, and announcing that there, I’ve more than paid off my crime now? Or do I need to get someone who loves me very much to selflessly volunteer to mutilate themselves in order to get me off?

It seems to me that if I were to accept such an offer, it would make me even more of a disgusting monster than just someone who let a parking meter expire. I don’t think justice is served by allowing others to take responsibility for my crimes — yet somehow a fundamental precept of Christianity is the doctrine of the scapegoat.

Myers takes this discrepancy as a means by which he chooses to utterly reject Christianity.  And within this understanding of penal substitution, I can't say that I blame him.  We preach in this theory of atonement about a just God, but then turn around and tell our people that God atones for our injustices by committing injustice in return.  God kills an innocent man.  God not only kills an innocent man, but God requires this death in order that God's wrath might be appeased.

Does that make a lot of sense, when you think about it?  I realize, God doesn't need to find a way to forgive humanity in the first place, and that's a potent argument in favor of just about any of these models of atonement.  But if we're telling people to believe in a just and loving God, then why do we teach a model of injustice as our primary way of understanding how we are enabled to experience God's love for ourselves?

The idea that God is only willing to forgive as long as someone pays a blood price is hard to swallow.  Further, to say that God cannot or will not forgive without that price being paid is downright dangerous - we place a view on God that, while supported in Scripture by images of justice being required by God, is also dispelled by Scripture through its insistence that God is loving and merciful, quick to forgive and ready to give new life to all who trust in God.

So, then, what's a better model?  Is there a better model?

 

Maybe we need to go back a bit and look at the theory that was widely taught before Anselm came around - we'll look next time at the Moral Influence Theory of Atonement.