In My Place? Some Thoughts on Atonement (UPDATED)

I've been doing some thinking about atonement lately, and it looks to me like I'm not alone.

It seems that as many of us struggle with what it means to follow Jesus--as opposed to following the religion of Christianity that many of us grew up with and in--atonement is an issue that must be confronted. And if you're like me, this might be yet another case of abandoning the single theory, the non-negotiable, the deal-breaker you once bet the farm on, and becoming comfortable with not replacing it with something equally exclusive. Instead, this is an area of theology I'm learning to hold loosely. Oh, I've got some ideas that I'm partial to, and I'll share them here, but I'm open to the notion of being wrong. (As I've said many times before, I'm quite sure half of what I believe is wrong. The problem is I don't know which half.) And it's not about having no views. As far as I can tell, it's about new views, and how we hold them. The old ones haven't brought us very far.

This is not meant to be a primer on atonement. There are a lot smarter people than I who have dealt with this issue, so there is plenty out there for you to read. (Personally, I've just picked up a copy of Saving Power: Theories of Atonement and Forms of the Church, by Peter Schmiechen, which I plan on getting to soon. After that, I think it will be Stricken by God?: Nonviolent Indentification and the Victory of Christ, edited by Brad Jersak and Michael Hardin. But, I digress.)

In a nutshell, atonement theory attempts to deal with the issue of forgiveness of sin, and why Jesus went to the cross. It seems that those who believe all agree that Christ on the cross is critical to our faith, but for some reason we can't agree on exactly why he did it.

I won't keep you in the dark on what I think any longer. The notion that I have let go of is the Penal Substitution theory of atonement. Here's what Wikipedia has to say about this particular theory, which seems as good a definition as any:

Penal substitution is a theory of the atonement within Christian theology, especially associated with the Reformed tradition. It argues that Christ, by his own sacrificial choice, was punished (penalised) in the place of sinners (substitution), thus satisfying the demands of justice so God can justly forgive the sins. It is thus a specific understanding of substitutionary atonement, where the substitutionary nature of Jesus' death is understood in the sense of a substitutionary punishment.

I'm sure there are proponents of penal substitution who may take issue with the wording of this definition. Feel free to do so in the comments. I put it this way: God can't stand sin, so somebody had to pay the price. (Why do I feel the urge to insert "G*ddammit!" here?) We are the sinners, so we should pay the price. Thankfully, Jesus came to take our place, to take our sins upon himself, and to pay the price for us.

As I continue on this journey of learning to follow Jesus, there are many reasons why this theory no longer makes any sense to me. I should first tell you however that I no longer think that any one single theory--of anything, really--can adequately explain God. God is not two-dimensional. I'm constantly amazed at the arrogance of humanity when we believe that we can clearly explain some aspect of the Creator of the universe in a couple of sentences. As I've said before any god that I can fully understand and succinctly explain cannot be God, but is more likely an advertising slogan.

Before going on, the other thing I should share is what finally prompted me to write this post. The last straw was struggling through some of the transcript of this interview with Paul Young, author of The Shack, which I somehow found here.

Adams: “Ya, many see that as Christ being the agency of our reconciliation but that when, you know, that Christ was taking the wrath of God upon him, I, I take it that you wouldn’t, you wouldn’t agree that the cross was a place of punishment for our sin.”

Young: “No. I don’t, I am not a penal substitution …reformation…point of view.”

Adams: “But isn’t that the heart of the gospel? Is that the heart of the gospel?”

Young: “No! Ha, no! The heart of the gospel is that we are, are so pursued, the heart of the gospel is in Ephesians 1:5...

Isn't penal substitution the heart of the gospel? No! And I agree. To borrow a line from Paul (Young, not the other guy) the heart of the Gospel is that God is "particularly fond of us." The heart of the Gospel is grace. And I believe the heart of the Gospel is that Jesus came to reveal to us God's plan to redeem all of Creation.

As I see it, the penal substitution theory positions God as less than God. Our sin must somehow be eliminated before we can commune with God. It must be. It's like God has no say in the matter, which is to say that God is less than all-powerful. This simply cannot be: God is not subject to rules. God makes the rules! And breaks them should God choose to do so. God is the Source of Everything. I can't help myself; when I think about penal substitution I see a cigar-chomping, Edward G. Robinson-type God saying, "Look kid, I'd like to help you, see? But there's this problem of your sin, and it has to be done away with first, see?"

Another issue for me is the incompatibility of this theory with grace. God so loved the world... that he had to murder his son. I don't see it. I know some will bring up "the wrath of God", but I have a feeling we are seriously deluded as to what that really means. 

Finally, the biggest issue for me here is the failure to place the atonement within the larger Story of God.

Picture this for a moment: Imagine life in Israel before Jesus dies. Or to really reinforce the idea, imagine it before Jesus was born. How was sin dealt with then? It was dealt with according to the Law. A sin offering was made. A young bull, a goat, pigeons, grain... whatever was called for. Are you telling me that what was forgiven with a bull one day required the death of the Son of God the next? I don't see it. (Of course, we could run down this rabbit hole of considering how people were "saved" prior to Christ, which I actually think reveals the fallacy in that way of thinking.)

Yes, I believe everything changed with the coming of Jesus. Yes, I believe the Old Testament is no longer the agenda for the church the way the New Testament is. And yes, I believe Jesus when he said he was the fulfillment of the Law.

I believe one of the reasons Jesus went to the cross was this: Jesus died to symbolize the final sacrifice. The People of God had become addicted to the Law, and we were no longer moving forward in the Story God had written for us. It's as if God was saying, "Look, enough with the chickens and goats already. Your sins are forgiven, once and for all. Now, can we get back to my plan to redeem all of Creation?"

And 2000 years later we've made a new law out of the Cross. Tragic.

But, things are afoot. Questions are being asked, and this is good.

That's enough from me for now. Cautiously, the comments are open.

UPDATE: A couple friends have carried on the conversation on their own blogs. Check out what Darryl Dash and Ryan Dueck have to say on the subject.

Comments

[Kedda]

Your post is thoughtful. I long ago gave up the "Wrathful God" concept. I have blogged a lot on some of the topics in your post. Visit my blog if you want my view of the way the Christ event changes everything.

[Kinnon]

"My God, my God why have You forsaken me?"

Psalm 22 is an important lens in the understanding of Jesus death on the Cross.

And Paul in 2 Cor 5 says via Petersen's paraphrase:

God put the world square with himself through the Messiah, giving the world a fresh start by offering forgiveness of sins. God has given us the task of telling everyone what he is doing. We're Christ's representatives. God uses us to persuade men and women to drop their differences and enter into God's work of making things right between them. We're speaking for Christ himself now: Become friends with God; he's already a friend with you.

How? you ask. In Christ. God put the wrong on him who never did anything wrong, so we could be put right with God.

You know I love you but I believe your take on the atonement borders on the heterodox. But what do I know, eh? :-(

[Mike]

Thanks Kedda, much appreciated.

Bill - Borders on? Dude, I'm a citizen of, but you know I'm OK with that, sad as it is. And I don't see any conflict with what I've said and the 2 Corinthians passage. Feel free to elaborate if you want to.

[Wes Roberts]

...OK

...what else am I thinking?

...since earlier today, at St. Matthew's 8 AM service, the priest said something that got me thinking about the atonement

(...'twas probably the best service yet there...)

...and when walking away from church and heading for home I actually wondered what "Mike is thinking currently about atonement."

...so when I logged in I actually laughed out loud

...from a deep heart of gratitude for your courage and your words

...or were you sitting a couple of rows behind me hearing what I heard? :-)

...next Skype chat let's talk some about this

[BrianinBC]

I see the overarching narrative of the Bible as clearly showing, echoing, foreshadowing and affirming the atonement as a substitutionary transaction. You can track the thought pattern from Genesis through Revelation.

Isaiah 52 and 53 are one of the clearest examples of this:

5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,
and by his wounds we are healed.

6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to his own way;
and the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.
- snip -

8 By oppression [d] and judgment he was taken away.
And who can speak of his descendants?
For he was cut off from the land of the living;
for the transgression of my people he was stricken. [e]

10 Yet it was the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the LORD makes [f] his life a guilt offering,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand.

Paul picks this up clearly in Romans 3 and reaffirms it throughout his writings.

I don't see it as being in any way counter to Grace...it is the ultimate Grace! The most expensive gift ever given...that which none of us deserve which costs the receiver nothing and the giver everything.

[Kinnon]

Mike,
As I am a simpleton @ best when it comes to theology, allow me to quote the Bishop of Durham from pgs 105-6 in his new book Justification. (Twould seem that Nicholas Thomas has come up frequently in my blogdom conversations this weekend.)

Fourth, the faithful obedience of the Messiah, culminating in his death "for our sins in accordance with the scriptures" as in one of Paul's summaries of the gospel (1 Corintians 15:3), is regularly understood in terms of the Messiah, precisely because he represents his people, now appropriately standing in for them, taking upon himself the death which they deserved, so that they might not suffer it themselves. This is most clearly expressed, to my mind, in two passages: Romans 8:3, where Paul "condemned sin in the flesh" (note, he does not say that God "condemned Jesus," but that he "condemned sin in the flesh" of Jesus); and 2 Corinthians 5:21a, where he says that God "made him to be sin [for us] who knew no sin." There are of course many other passages in which Paul draws upon, and draws out, the stunning, majestic, grace-filled, love-expressing, life-giving message and meaning of the Messiah's cross. But these are basic and clear. "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus....For God...has condemned sin in the flesh [of his son]." [Romans 8:1-3] Sin was condemned here, in us, in those who are "in him." Notice how the sterile old antithesis between "representation" and "substitution" is overcome. The Messiah is able to substitute because he is the representative. Once we rasp the essentially Jewish categories of thought with which Paul is working, many problems in a de-Judaized systematic theology are transcended. [Please note that bold in this text represents italics in NT Wright's.]

The "my God is not a cosmic child-abuser" argument against substitution which seems to come up a little too regularly in the emerging realms of theological discussion is fallacious. You rightfully recognize that God is infinitely other, Mike and then want to remake him in an image you are comfortable with. The fact that you see the Righteousness and Justice of God represented by an Edward G. Robinson character would appear to be your issue (as entertaining an image as it might be.)

Fleming Rutledge, one of the first female priests in the ECUSA and one of the finest preachers I have ever heard, responds to your problem with judgment and Old Testament/New Testament argument almost as if she had you in mind, :-)

...The whole idea of judgment sounds cold and forbidding to us. If we use the word judgmental to describe someone, it is not a compliment. It is typical of our day and time to price tolerance more than discernment. It is characteristic of us to say that people should be able to do whatever they want to do. We don't really mean that, of course we all have limits as to what we tolerate but our cultural resistance to the idea of God as a righteous Judge is very strong.

This resistance has a lot to do with the common tendency to divide the Old Testament from the New. Churchgoing people frequently speak of the judgmental God of the Old Testament and the loving God of the New. This is not only ignorant, it is dangerous, because it can lead to forms of anti-Judaism.

Lets take another look. I heard a preacher on the radio say that the New Testament tells us almost nothing about what went on in the mind of Jesus. That got my attention, because its true. Then he said a very striking thing. He said, If you want to know what went on in Jesus mind, read the Old Testament [read the Hebrew Scriptures]. That is a dazzlingly simple way of stating the matter. We tend to forget that what we call the Old Testament was the only Bible that Jesus and the first Christians had. Not only so, but those Hebrew Scriptures were known to them by heart in a fashion that we today can scarcely imagine. There are many things that we do not know about Jesus, but we can be sure of this: his whole being was shaped by intimate, continuous interaction with the Torah, the Psalms, the Prophets and the other Scriptures of Israel.

In those Hebrew Scriptures, there are a few ideas that predominate, and of these themes, there is none more central than that of the justice of God, also called his righteousness. God is righteous, just, holy: these words are used interchangeably with his name. the prophet Isaiah says, The Lord of hosts is exalted in justice, and the Holy God shows himself holy in righteousness. Wherever justice is administered, the Lord himself is present: When the king appointed judges in Israel, this is what he said to them: Consider what you do, for the Lord is with you in giving judgement. Let the fear of the Lord be upon you; take heed what you do, for there is no perversion of justice with the Lord our God, no partiality, no taking bribes (II Chronicles 19:4-7).

You can read it all on her blog, oddly enough called Generous Orthodoxy:
http://www.generousorthodoxy.org/discourses/articlesessays/the-justice-and-righteousness-of-god.aspx

[Jonathan Brink]

Mike, it sounds like you are wrestling and I love it. I began this same question about 9 months ago and I have not regretted it. It has, if anything expanded my understanding of it. Much love to your journey.

[JJ]

Hey good post. I have often had very similar thoughts Tried to express them once in this essay. http://www.next-wave.org/mar03/atonement.htm If you give it a read, I'd love to hear where your think it is right or wrong... still don't know myself. But as you say, that's maybe the best place to be. Are we supposed to know such things with a rigid certainty? Funny that Jesus never laid it out for us then....

[Darryl Dash]

Have you read A Community Called Atonement by Scot McKnight? I believe it's one of the better books out there on this topic.

[Darryl Dash]

P.S. McKnight's not Reformed but still sees a place for the penal substitution view, among others.

[Ryan]

I would enthusiastically echo Darryl's endorsement of McKnight's book. Another good one out there is Joel Green and Mark Baker's "Proclaiming the Scandal of the Cross." Both of these books take issue with the taken-for-grantedness of penal substitution as THE explanation of the atonement and try to give some of the other (neglected) approaches out there more of a voice.

[nancy (aka moneycoach)]

I heard a Good Friday homily by a History Prof (and not just any one - a Cambridge grad whose field was Dietrich Bonhoeffer) who pointed out that while there has always been a "penal substitutionary" understanding of Christ's death, it wasn't always as predominant as in the past few centuries. St. Anselm shaped the doctrine and of course the Reform Theologians advanced it - at a particular time and place: It gained popularity with the advance of mercantilism in Europe. Notice a lot of the language associated with it: Jesus "paid the price"; "exchange"; "free".

[Daniel Fulmer]

Mike: I like what you wrote about opinions although maybe you called them views, theories, beliefs. We seem to live in the era of battling opinions as if they were the most important thing. Here is my opinion about that: people tend to worship ideas and beliefs and always have. There is a Chinese Taoist saying that we should stop pursuing truth and instead just keep backing away from our opinions. It is not that I am against beliefs. No, what gets us into trouble is trying to foist them on others or assuming we should all have the same beliefs. We cannot stay too long with the notion that God and the spirit are great mysteries, letting them be in charge rather than us. It is very early here on the Western fringe of America and I got up because I was tossing and turning in bed over a quarrel that erupted between me and my daughter. So I sat here searching here and there on the Web for something. It is like life in general. It is often frustrating and we seek to get on top of it but in the end the only thing that seems to work for me is to get in touch with my need, my yearning and to allow something else to come into that space. That something I choose to call God.

[Mike]

Great feedback so far friends, thanks.

Bill - thanks for the reminder of Wright's new book. AS you know I'm a big fan of the good Bishop's, and I've been looking forward to his latest. It's got to go into the pile, near the top. And Darryl and Ryan - thanks also for your book recommendations. I'm glad you guys have stopped in.

Generally some of the other comments are showing me that I'm not articulating my view clearly yet.

I don't dispute for a second that Christ "became sin for us." What I am questioning is the why of it all. From where I site proponents of penal substitution would say Jesus died because God required it. What I am suggesting is instead that we required it.

Let me expand that a bit.

As I said in the post, the People of God were trapped in the Old Testament gospel of sin management. (Sound familiar?!) In one sense perhaps, God had to beat us at our own game. Yes, Jesus, who was without sin, took our sin upon himself, but I think perhaps he did it so we could get over it and move past it. Penal substitution suggests that it happened so that God could get past it.

That is what I no longer believe, heretic that I am, and what I want to question here more broadly. As I heard Richard Rohr say a couple of months ago in Albuquerque, "Jesus did not come to change the mind of God about humanity. He came to change the mind of humanity about God."

[Dave King]

Mike, I've been wondering if Jesus died to appease the wrath of man. When you talk forgiveness with people they have a real hard time with it, they want the bad person to pay. Jesus took the punishment of sin, not from God, but the punishment that sin generates on its own in us and in us wanting to punish others.

Just a thought.

- Peace

[kate]

wow, mike. you did a good job clarifiying in your comment. thanks to you and richard rohr. i want to think this all through.

we had to get past it. not God. amazing. but of course...

[Jacynta Pittaway]

This is all very interesting, I never really even thought about it....you know, Jesus came, covered me, I'm good to go and love on others. A little simplistic in the shadow of this deep discussion, I know.

Good thoughts mike, got me thinking
Cheers
J

[Steve K.]

Mike,

I think your last comment excellently clarifies what you're getting at with this post. I think some of the other commenters (folks like Bill K. and Darryl D., who I have great respect for - from afar) are misunderstanding your intention a little bit. Or they're truly holding on so tightly to the dominance of PSA in their theology that they're unwilling to see it's "supremacy," if you will, be questioned in any way.

I think that's the trouble with these discussions oftentimes, that what gets heard is not what we intend. Does that make the conversation not worth having? Of course not! It's a great discussion, and I'm glad you didn't let the possibility of being misunderstood and labeled a "heretic" and all the rest stop you from putting this out there.

Thanks for letting us journey with you!

Shalom,
Steve K.

[Darryl Dash]

Steve:

Actually, I've been behaving. Honest!

I PSA view isn't sufficient, so I think it's great to explore other perspectives on the atonement. In face, we need them.

But guys like Wright and McKnight help us see that penal substitution, when rightly understood, is a needed perspective on the atonement as well. I'm much more interested in getting rid of some of ways penal substitution is misunderstood than losing it altogether.

Many more threads here to pick up, but I hope that clarifies where I'm coming from a bit.

[Ryan]

Mike, as you may have imagined, I like what you say here and I like the thread Emergent started last year in seeking metaphors that move us beyond the places we've been stuck.
(I wrote a bit here http://tinyurl.com/ow3qd2)

You mentioned the misunderstandings of God's wrath and it made me think to Brennen Manning's definition of "the fear of God" Manning explains the fear of God as "silent wander, radical amazement, & affectionate awe"... which to me gets at the humility (not guilt) that God should illicit.

Good stuff, man. I plan on re-reading soon.

[Bill Kinnon]

Steve,
I confess that your response made me chuckle a little. I acknowledged my position on the theological ladder at the beginning of my 2nd comment and invited Mike to engage with NT Wright and Fleming Rutledge - who are a little higher up that ladder than moi. :-)

Mike hasn't done that - other than acknowledging his great love for the B.o.D.

Mike,
Jesus died because "we required it"? Really?
It is your blog so you are more than welcome to ignore me, but would you engage with both Rutledge and Wright. Or not. Again, it's your blog.

[Paul Wilkinson]

Rather than engage the doctrinal specifics, I'd like to personalize this a little.

I have heard some excellent sermons on the need for the wrath of God to be poured out at Calvary in order to satisfy the justice of God, as well as some great teachings on how Hebrews maps on to Leviticus.

I've also listened more recently to discussions Paul Young's book has started, and those who talk about Misseo Dei which sits well with my ever-formulating understanding of the nature of God.

What I'm finding -- and maybe this is simply a weakness on my part or an unwillingness to spend the extra mental energies required -- is that while each is powerfully persuasive, nothing 'sticks' with me. I don't mean that five minutes later I can't recite the key points -- although sometimes that happens, too -- but I mean that I'm looking for something that I can finally take ownership of and say, this is what I believe in reference to what happened on the cross. A doctrine that sticks.

I've always believed that the doctrinal puzzle pieces must fit together to form the systematic theology picture, and I find myself here with a picture that is fairly complete, but for a few holes, and I have some pieces in my hand, but can't quite plug them into the greater picture. But I'm able to work well with the picture I do have.

And I keep thinking that after 2,000 years, it would be nice if could articulate this clearly and once and for all. But then I remember that mystery is a part of faith and wonder if the part of the gospel story that we just celebrated at Easter -- the part that is so very central to everything -- is actually where the greatest concentration of mystery lies.

For now, I am not skilled to understand, what God has willed, what God has planned, I only know at His right hand, stands one who is my Savior.

[grace]

On the theological ladder, I am a step below Bill, but I will chime in anyway. :)

Bill, it is true that substitution is everywhere in Scripture. It is the penal aspect that I - and it sounds like Mike - do not agree with. Substitution, yes. Punishment, no.

Jesus shares God’s wrath toward sin. I believe they, as God, determined to carry the full effect of sin FOR US, representing and becoming a substitute, in order to destroy the curse of sin over mankind and creation.

In carrying the full weight of sin and death, He put an end to (condemned) the hold that sin had over mankind (who were born into the curse of fallenness). I absolutely agree that on the cross Jesus carried the full load of sin as a substitute for us.

God's righteousness and justice are about his determination to reconcile us to Himself, to recover, set right, and reverse the effect of the fall. This position of love and pursuit has always been God's intent toward humanity. It has nothing to do with punishment.

[Leighton Tebay]

I wonder if many of us will end up taking the atonement as a mystery much like the Orthodox do. It does seem like all of our theories on the atonement are 2d pictures of a 3d object.

It seems as though scripture is clear that Jesus bore our sin (Is 53), and became sin on our behalf (2Cor 5). I grapple with what this means as well. The hows and the whys are less clear.

For me there are some things that clear. We are far too overweight in common variety PSA because for most evangelicals the gospel is all about rescuing us from hell, and very little about abundant life.

[Mike]

Great comments, friends, thanks. I want to absorb them and do them justice. Meanwhile, keep 'em coming!

[Ron Henzel]

Thanks for the book recommendations. I'm always looking for good new texts on this subject. I’ve put some of my thoughts on penal substitution in a blog post that can be found at http://midwestoutreach.org/blogs/the-lamb-that-was-slain.

[Steve Hayes]

I've written something on salvation and atonement on my blog, and I'd be interested in your response tyo it. Christianity managed without the penal substitution theory for 1500 years -- how was anyone saved before?

[Jacqui]

This is an interesting blog on atonement and matters of grace. http://www.thebiblesmainpoint.blogspot.com/

The writer has used the blog as a series of articles that all link together. Worth looking at, if you are pondering this topic.