“After coming into contact with a religious man I always feel I must wash my hands.” (Friedrich Nietzche)
Based on the title it might appear as though I am about to attempt to make a case for some meta-physical approach toward the atoning ministry of Christ. That perhaps I am diminishing the sacrifice of Christ and encouraging each of you to embrace cheaper perspective of grace. Let me assure you that I am in no way proposing that Jesus was just some man or that the atonement of Christ is an illusion. However, I do want to raise questions that might challenge our understanding of the atoning sacrifice of Jesus. I do this not to needlessly challenge established beliefs or because I want to rebel against established theology. I simply believe that if the Church is going to fully embrace the current philosophical and theological evolutions that it claims it is embracing and venture into naturalistic inquiry than it must allow those questions and developments to go beyond worship styles and church growth strategies. More importantly, I want to challenge belief systems that have promoted a theology of sin within my own spiritual formation that has led to a nihilistic understanding of my dependence on God: a personal theology that has been less about the restorative and redemptive work of Christ and more about my failures as a sinner. This is not to say that I see myself as any less of a sinner than I had when I was younger, but that the New Covenant redirected the emphasis on our failures to the grace of Christ and that the breadth of true salvation reached far beyond salvation from personal failures and into all areas that create separation from God. I also think that it is important to keep in mind that the mainstream, Protestant church’s belief regarding atonement was developed centuries after the resurrection. From all accounts, it appears that the earliest church didn’t have much of a theology regarding atonement and were simply grateful for it. We too should be careful not to intellectualize our relationship with God. Developing a zeal for theology and doctrine can be dangerous and can act as an easy substitute for true discipleship. However, we must also continue to use the mind that God gave us to seek Him in new and exciting ways.
Currently, the predominant atonement theory within the Protestant church is known as the Satisfaction Theory of Atonement developed by Archbishop Anselem of Canterbury in the late 11th century. The foundation of this belief is that Jesus atones for man’s sin through human sacrifice to restore honor to God. Using the Hebrew traditions of sacrifice of animals at the altar in the Jerusalem Temple, this theory argues that a price must be paid to reconcile man to God. Jesus paid that price through His voluntary sacrifice as a perfect and perpetual sacrifice. For the most part, a study of the New Testament gives credibility to this theory, but it has been accepted blindly by the church for a thousand years. This theory base has a lot of value that goes beyond simple biblical integrity (as crucial as that is). This approach allows the follower to visualize the sacrifice Christ made for us. It gives us an image which we can use to describe what Jesus accomplished. It also provides an icon (the cross) which can hold sacred value and can act as a visual and ongoing reminder of Christ’s love for us.
However, there have been criticisms raised of this theory of atonement. For example, the logic that one sin could separate man from God which requires a perfect offering should also accept that one act of goodness should permanently unite us with God. This criticism is often dealt with in the church by arguing that even the smallest sin is a permanent “blot” making us no longer pure and therefore separating us from God. Another criticism is the theory demonstrates an arrogant God that demands violence in order for reconciliation to occur. Here the church often argues that it wasn’t violence, but sacrifice that was required. A finally criticism is that the theory is that if the sacrifice of Christ covers all sin then it should cover those who don’t accept Christ as their savior. Here the church argues that it is available to everyone, everyone who accepts the gift. I believe that the church responds appropriately to these criticisms. But I believe there are better criticisms of the Satisfaction Theory: If the primary purpose of Christ going to the cross was to absolve us from religion because religion is incapable of reconciliation, then why would He use such a religious approach? And, if the point is that man is incapable of making things right between man and God, then why would He ultimately make it man’s responsibility to respond appropriately?
Alternative theories have been offered which address some these issues, but none have had the impact of the Satisfaction Theory of Atonement. The Ransom Theory proposed by Origen, a leader of the Alexandrian School in Egypt, was dominant in the early church as early as the second century. This theory suggests that a ransom was paid to Satan through the death of Christ. This theory makes God and Satan far to equal. The Moral Theory is a humanist theory which suggests that Jesus’ life and death were an example to humanity to lift ourselves up to God. The Moral Theory, therefore, devalues atonement as an act of God. The Moral Theory was proposed by Abelard, a French abbot theologian and philosopher in the 12th century. Theologians John Duns Scotus and William of Ockham promoted an atonement theory known as the Acceptance Theory which proposes that the sacrifice of Christ was an arbitrary act of God to represent God’s intention to bring atonement for sins. The theory ultimately argues for the arbitrary reconciliation God brings. This theory, which is largely metaphoric, has some value, but I believe it is missing a critical component which I will address soon. The Penal or Substitution Theory of Atonement was also proposed by Anselem and was widely held by leading theologians of the Reformation such as Martin Luther. It states that God’s mercy replaces God’s wrath with the infinite sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. The theory is similar to the Satisfaction Theory. The significant difference being that the Satisfaction Theory holds God’s honor as central whereas the Penal Theory holds a debt as central. There is a debt created by the original sin that must be paid.
No comments:
Post a Comment