The Atonement?

a·tone·ment  (-tnmnt)
n.

1. Amends or reparation made for an injury or wrong; expiation.
2. 1. Reconciliation or an instance of reconciliation between God and humans.
   2. 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

Comments

[Theodore A. Jones]

The keys into the kingdom of God are:
1. Hearing that that the crucifixion of Jesus is the sin of murder caused by bloodshed.
2. Believing by faith that the individual can only save himself by repenting of this one sin for the forgiveness of ALL sins.
3. Willingly being baptised to show that you find this Way acceptable for salvation from death.
No one gets into heaven by not using this small narrow gate for not using this Way is a disobedience of one of God's commands. Note that a person only has to be guilty of breaking one of God's commands to be guilty of breaking all of God's commands.
Theodore A. Jones

[David]

Grief!