Our Example
One of the more unfortunate aspects of discussion of atonement in the current culture is that it has become polarized. It is difficult now to separate this academic discussion from the emotional hand grenades that have been lobbed back and forth between liberals and conservatives for years. I hope that you who read this can take a look at some of this different atonement language again. None of them is sufficient all by itself, just as none of them is totally without merit or warrant. In this week's entry and in next week's, I will critique the favorite atonement theories for liberals and then for conservatives. I guess that if today's post doesn't step on your toes, that next week's will.
As the ransom theory began to fade in popularity in the middle ages, Peter Abelarde made famous the idea that Jesus is primarily an example for us. Focusing primarily on the love of God, he believed that God's love was so great that he could forgive without anything being done to make up for the fact that his law had been broken. Jesus' death according to this theory does nothing to change our standing before God objectively. It is not a ransom, a sacrifice, or a substitute for us. Instead, it affects us subjectively because it moves us to greater compassion, because it moves us to repentance, because it shows us what true love really looks like. When we look at him we are moved to follow him.
Contrary to what some more conservative folks would say, there is plenty of scriptural warrant for looking at Jesus as our example. In John 13, Jesus gave the disciples a "new command" and washed their feet. In Ephesians 5, Paul said to imitate God, in 1 Peter 2 we are told that Christ left us an example so that we "follow in his steps." 2 Corinthians 5 tell us that Christ's love compels us to live for him not for ourselves.
This theory is reflected in several ways in our "church language." Those who adhere to this theory of the atonement frequently will refer to Jesus' life, death, and resurrection in describing how atonement works. We can look at how he lived his life (ministry with the dispossessed, the marginalized, the "outs" of society) and not just how he died. The WWJD bracelets that were so popular a few years ago are a reflection of it. We also see it very clearly in the great hymn "When I Survey the Wondrous Cross," and to a lesser extent we see it in the equally classic old hymn "Be Thou My Vision."
Now to play the critic. There are several serious flaws with this theory of atonement. First, if there is nothing objectively being done on the cross, how can it be an example of anything? Its ability to affect us emotionally is linked to what it does for us objectively. In fact, the 1 Peter passage I referred to also uses other atonement language as well. One article I read offered this assessment. If a someone dies saving a drowning person we are moved. If, on the other hand, someone jumps into the raging river with the drowning person and just drowns simply to identify with the victim we look at it as a senseless act. Likewise, Jesus' death can move us only if it actually does something. Another quite serious flaw with it, is that it doesn't take the issue of sin seriously enough. As a theology professor of mine said, if our problem is simply one of the mind where can imitate him and be straightened out, we could do just as well by going to a good counselor. Additionally, making Jesus purely an example to follow could actually lead to making him a Law, inserting an unintended legalism. Lastly, this theory of atonement, left alone cannot account for the resurrection. It's actually an unnecessary add on.
I caution you against tossing this theory into the ash heap though. Even though this theory is insufficient by itself, we cannot dispense with it. Is there any better guide to how to live than to simply try to live as Jesus did? Did he not instruct his disciples to follow his example in the upper room scene in John's Gsopel? Was not John Newton (author of the hymn "Amazing Grace") who was a slave trader turned Anglican minister converted by reading the devotional classic "On the Imitation of Christ" that urges the reader to follow Jesus as an example? Is it possible to look at the cross of Christ without being moved to repentance?
As the ransom theory began to fade in popularity in the middle ages, Peter Abelarde made famous the idea that Jesus is primarily an example for us. Focusing primarily on the love of God, he believed that God's love was so great that he could forgive without anything being done to make up for the fact that his law had been broken. Jesus' death according to this theory does nothing to change our standing before God objectively. It is not a ransom, a sacrifice, or a substitute for us. Instead, it affects us subjectively because it moves us to greater compassion, because it moves us to repentance, because it shows us what true love really looks like. When we look at him we are moved to follow him.
Contrary to what some more conservative folks would say, there is plenty of scriptural warrant for looking at Jesus as our example. In John 13, Jesus gave the disciples a "new command" and washed their feet. In Ephesians 5, Paul said to imitate God, in 1 Peter 2 we are told that Christ left us an example so that we "follow in his steps." 2 Corinthians 5 tell us that Christ's love compels us to live for him not for ourselves.
This theory is reflected in several ways in our "church language." Those who adhere to this theory of the atonement frequently will refer to Jesus' life, death, and resurrection in describing how atonement works. We can look at how he lived his life (ministry with the dispossessed, the marginalized, the "outs" of society) and not just how he died. The WWJD bracelets that were so popular a few years ago are a reflection of it. We also see it very clearly in the great hymn "When I Survey the Wondrous Cross," and to a lesser extent we see it in the equally classic old hymn "Be Thou My Vision."
Now to play the critic. There are several serious flaws with this theory of atonement. First, if there is nothing objectively being done on the cross, how can it be an example of anything? Its ability to affect us emotionally is linked to what it does for us objectively. In fact, the 1 Peter passage I referred to also uses other atonement language as well. One article I read offered this assessment. If a someone dies saving a drowning person we are moved. If, on the other hand, someone jumps into the raging river with the drowning person and just drowns simply to identify with the victim we look at it as a senseless act. Likewise, Jesus' death can move us only if it actually does something. Another quite serious flaw with it, is that it doesn't take the issue of sin seriously enough. As a theology professor of mine said, if our problem is simply one of the mind where can imitate him and be straightened out, we could do just as well by going to a good counselor. Additionally, making Jesus purely an example to follow could actually lead to making him a Law, inserting an unintended legalism. Lastly, this theory of atonement, left alone cannot account for the resurrection. It's actually an unnecessary add on.
I caution you against tossing this theory into the ash heap though. Even though this theory is insufficient by itself, we cannot dispense with it. Is there any better guide to how to live than to simply try to live as Jesus did? Did he not instruct his disciples to follow his example in the upper room scene in John's Gsopel? Was not John Newton (author of the hymn "Amazing Grace") who was a slave trader turned Anglican minister converted by reading the devotional classic "On the Imitation of Christ" that urges the reader to follow Jesus as an example? Is it possible to look at the cross of Christ without being moved to repentance?
Comments
Post a Comment