a·tone·ment (
-t
n
mnt)
n.
- Amends or reparation made for an injury or wrong; expiation.
- Reconciliation or an instance of reconciliation between God and humans.
- Atonement Christianity. The reconciliation of God and humans brought about by the redemptive life and death of Jesus.
For over a year now, I, along with many others, have been reconsidering our view of the atonement of Christ. Long prominent in western Christianity is the concept of the substitutionary atonement, i.e. namely that Christ died in our place. But it seems that the release of The Passion of the Christ has awakend our postmodern sensibilities. Feminist theologians have especially brought this issue for many evangelicals: if God wanted to forgive us, why didn't God just forgive us? Why did God need something bad (the murder of an innocent) to occur before God did something good? Why did Jesus need to die a violent death, and doesn't the cross promote redemptive violence? I am sure you can see the timeliness of this question in light of the terrorism we face in our world today.
Two books that have really helped shape my thinking in this regard have been The Nonviolent Atonement and Recovering the Scandal of the Cross. So did Brian McLaren's The Last Word, even though the main premise of the book is hell, not the atonement.
I was thinking about this recently b/c of a few blog posts and articles that I came across online, and know that a lot of people don't know anything about this. I think it's a great topic for both Christians and non-Christians and that it's really important and timely. As we are in Lent and approaching Holy Week soon, I invite you into the conversation of what really happenned when Jesus went to the cross, and why.
"I will lay it down as a premise for theological thinking about the atonement that one’s theory of sin shapes (even to the point of determining) one’s theory of the atonement. I will also agree with many scholars who point out that males have shaped the discussion of the atonement. Let’s
just name the major influences: Irenaeus and the recapitulation theory,
the Cappadocian fathers and the ransom theory, Anselm and the
satisfaction theory, Abelard and the moral influence theory, the
Reformers and the penal substitution theory, Hugo Grotius and the
government theory. Each theory is connected to a male. Has their
“maleness” intruded into the theory of the atonement? Feminists think
so. What do you think?
Rita Finger argued that the penal
substitution and moral influence theories encouraged women into
patterns of submission, while the ransom (Christus Victor) theory
encouraged liberation. Some feminists have repudiated the cross as an
instrument of powerful violence against the oppressed and powerless,
and have therefore sought out a theory of atonement that is virtually
cross-less (Ruether). The cross, so they are arguing, justifies
violence against the weak.
Now if the premise above be
accepted, we are in need of examining our understanding of sin, and we
have to ask if males have shaped the discussion in light of male-ish
sins and therefore male-ish atonement. Do the theories of atonement
above mostly focus on the “curse” of God against Adam in Genesis 3 and
do they incorporate enough the “curse” against women in Genesis 3?"
Feminism and Atonement
"Chalke opened the evening by emphasizing that The Lost Message of Jesus was not just about atonement, the issue that his critics have most
seized on, but also about rediscovering Jesus' call to radical
discipleship and peace. He admitted that his book had gaps as it was
not meant to be an academic or even theological book. “I wrote this
book for those who don't know Christ yet,” he said, “We [Christians]
are considered to be guilt-inducing and judgemental.” Our focus on
penal substitution is part of that problem, he said.
By focusing simply on God's wrath and appeasement through the cross we
paint a distorted picture of Gods character. We portray him as a
someone bent on retribution rather than someone who loves us deeply but
who is upset by our actions. Furthermore, Chalke said, penal
substitution perpetuates the myth of redemptive violence.
Chalke clarified that he does believe in substitutionary atonement on
the cross but not penal substitution. He also outlined the notion of
Christus Victor which sees Christ's life, death and resurrection all
together as victory over the powers of evil, both spiritual and
earthly.
Gathercol responded with an assessment of a number of areas. First he
felt that the book was too one sided and needed more balanced
discussion. He said that Chalke's renderings of the Gospel made the
future life a pale second best to now. “My concern with Steve's view is
that it has very little to do with saving us for eternity,” said
Gathercol, “[Jesus] does talk a heck of a lot about the final
judgement.”
Responding to Chalke's critique of penal substitution, Gathercol made
the point that it was Father and Son working in unison undertaking to
bear weight of sin that we alone cannot. He suggested that it was not a
unilateral decision on God's part to have Jesus go to the cross. He
quoted on Mark 10:45 and said that the story of Jesus and the cross are
biblical and inspiring and that Jesus is paying a ransom for us,
arguing that you cannot simply get rid of a doctrine just because it
was badly treated by some.
Gathercol echoed the concerns of many Evangelicals when he suggested
that Chalke relativizes Jesus' message too much. “Steve has gone to
town on what sounds good in our context,” he said. “Jesus anticipated
that people weren't always going to lap up the message.” He went on to
argue that the book is a serious revision of Jesus' message that does
not fit with the picture of the “rescue mission” that is portrayed in
John 3:16.
Chalke responded to Gathercol's criticism by saying that his message
was not simpy “God loves you so take it easy.” However, at the other
extreme he called on the church not to reduce Jesus' message to the
“sinner's prayer” as a key to heaven. “In the end, if you believe in
penal substitution, the cross is not primarily about God's love, but
about God's anger,” he said."
The Lost Message of Jesus
Recent Comments