Common Ground
If you've read the previous musings on atonement theory, you'll remember that the most common ways Christians have looked at this topic are known as: the classical or ranson theory, moral influence, and substitutionary atonement. Now I'd like to muddy the waters even more, before hopefully providing a clear path out of this where believers can live peacefully with each other without hurling theological handgrenades.
In addition to the three views of atonement that looked at earlier, there have been any number of others. In fact, one former member of the Conference Board of Ordained Ministry was well-known for reportedly asking ministerial candidates in interviews to list seven or eight different theories. The great theologian Anselm of Canterbury was famous for promoting a theory known as "satisfaction." In the early 20th century Gustav Aulen wrote of atonement in terms of victory of sin and death in Christus Victor. The notion of atonement as victory over the forces of evil and death is very powerful to me and provides great sermon fodder. To add another to the mix there's the governmental theory proposed by the early 17th century philosopher Hugo Grotius. Additionally, within the realm of substitutionary atonement one can easily separate atonement as sacrifice from penal substitution. In short, beginning to discuss atonement quickly becomes a muddled mess.
Probably the biggest difficulty people have with atonement is that their view of atonement isn't big enough. This works itself out in at least two ways. First, atonement in the Bible encompasses all creation, though we don't fully know how this works itself out. Paul describes all creation groaning and being in bondage awaiting being set free in Romans 8. John, the author of Revelation describes a new heaven and a new earth. Jesus said that he came to make all things new. This has enormous implications for how we view creation and resurrection.
Second, for many their view of atonement isn't large enough because they tend to pick just one theory and discount every other. Every theory is flawed because, though there is some truth in all of them, it is impossible to describe in human language what happened on the cross. Human attempts to describe it are like the proverbial blindfolded men who try to describe an elephant. I think another problem here is that different views of the atonement can resonate differerently with people depending on their background. We often tend to make our own experiences normative for everyone, and this goes for atonement as well. Those with a deeply stained past may appreciate susbtitutionary atonement because it reminds them that the guilt for sin is taken by someone else. Another, who comes from the bondage of addiction can celebrate knowing that Christ has redeemed and purchased freedom. The believer who can't think of a time he or she didn't know Christ may naturally tend to look at his work as an example to follow.
In summary, don't be afraid to expand your notion of atonement, and be willing to understand that if the greatest minds of Christendom have come to differing understandings of atonement then we should avoid being too dogmatic about it ourselves. There are things in the Christian faith where the historic teachings of the church are in unity, and much to our discomfort atonement isn't one of them.
In addition to the three views of atonement that looked at earlier, there have been any number of others. In fact, one former member of the Conference Board of Ordained Ministry was well-known for reportedly asking ministerial candidates in interviews to list seven or eight different theories. The great theologian Anselm of Canterbury was famous for promoting a theory known as "satisfaction." In the early 20th century Gustav Aulen wrote of atonement in terms of victory of sin and death in Christus Victor. The notion of atonement as victory over the forces of evil and death is very powerful to me and provides great sermon fodder. To add another to the mix there's the governmental theory proposed by the early 17th century philosopher Hugo Grotius. Additionally, within the realm of substitutionary atonement one can easily separate atonement as sacrifice from penal substitution. In short, beginning to discuss atonement quickly becomes a muddled mess.
Probably the biggest difficulty people have with atonement is that their view of atonement isn't big enough. This works itself out in at least two ways. First, atonement in the Bible encompasses all creation, though we don't fully know how this works itself out. Paul describes all creation groaning and being in bondage awaiting being set free in Romans 8. John, the author of Revelation describes a new heaven and a new earth. Jesus said that he came to make all things new. This has enormous implications for how we view creation and resurrection.
Second, for many their view of atonement isn't large enough because they tend to pick just one theory and discount every other. Every theory is flawed because, though there is some truth in all of them, it is impossible to describe in human language what happened on the cross. Human attempts to describe it are like the proverbial blindfolded men who try to describe an elephant. I think another problem here is that different views of the atonement can resonate differerently with people depending on their background. We often tend to make our own experiences normative for everyone, and this goes for atonement as well. Those with a deeply stained past may appreciate susbtitutionary atonement because it reminds them that the guilt for sin is taken by someone else. Another, who comes from the bondage of addiction can celebrate knowing that Christ has redeemed and purchased freedom. The believer who can't think of a time he or she didn't know Christ may naturally tend to look at his work as an example to follow.
In summary, don't be afraid to expand your notion of atonement, and be willing to understand that if the greatest minds of Christendom have come to differing understandings of atonement then we should avoid being too dogmatic about it ourselves. There are things in the Christian faith where the historic teachings of the church are in unity, and much to our discomfort atonement isn't one of them.
Comments
Post a Comment