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.
Recent Comments