At-one-ment

With the memory's of last weekend's Holy Week services fresh in our minds, I'd like to take the next several marinations to reflect on atonement.  That Jesus' death atones for human sins is a fundamental part of our faith.  All of us fall short of the glory that was intended for us.  All of us stumble far too frequently.  None of us is worthy of the blessings God offers.  None of us, on our own merit can have any sort of meaningful relationship with God.  If that is the human problem, Jesus death is the solution.  It atones for our sins.  By it we are freed from the penalty of our sins, and to a certain extent are freed from the presence of sin.  The New Testament uses language such as "redemption," "propitiation," "ransom," and "sacrifice" in referring to Jesus' death.  All these loaded theological terms carry a lot of freight, and serve to convey the point that Jesus does make us right with God.

If it is clear that Jesus does make us right with God, what is not clear is how it happens.  We know that a transaction has taken place.  Scripture makes that much clear.  It does not, however, ever give a detailed theology of atonement.  Ever since the New Testament era Christians have wrestled with how to describe in human words this transaction.  The greatest minds of the faith have agonized over how precisely this atonement takes place, and have at times offered wildly different descriptions. 

There are lots of different theories for how the atonement took place.  In fact, depending upon how you categorize them, it is possible to identify upwards of six or seven different ones.  What I plan to do is to offer my own critique of three of the most prominent theories.  Along the way I hope to show the strengths of each, the dark underside of each one, how each relates to Easter, and how they show up in the language and hymns of the church.  Up next, Jesus our ransom.