SYMBOLIC ATONEMENT- Part 3

The core of this proposition (whether I am on the right track or not) is the place of symbol. By potentially misrepresenting the true value of the atonement in order to fit the modern apologetics of positivism the church has reduced the relational dynamic of reconciliation to fundamentalism. This has caused two distinct problems for those who strive to mature in their faith:

First- In the crucifixion narrative, Christ draws a thin line between symbol and ritual. Christ honors the value of ritual while simultaneously replacing it with symbol. I am becoming increasingly convinced that the current doctrine of the church has moved that line and identifies those things that are ritualistic as symbolic. The modern church has placed value in rituals and traditions well beyond their intended place while referring to those acts as ones of symbolism, representing inner meaning of spiritual vitality and health. There is an inherent danger in doing this. When the Christian begins to express spirituality through ritualism (including ritualism expressed through perceptions), he/ she becomes dependent on those experiences to have intimacy with God. An example of this would be when a believer comes to see worship as a particular order or style of a worship service. Obviously, I am neither saying that spiritual disciplines are an ineffective means of spiritual discipleship nor am I saying that those who practice rituals lack a healthy relationship with Christ, but I am suggesting that there is an unhealthy degree of dependence on experientialism in the modern church. Experiences that promote maturity are one thing, but teaching that experiences are necessary to connect with God is very different. This is particularly significant in late modernity and early postmodernity because of the cultural value placed on experientialism. During the era of modernity the positivistic approach toward atonement was a means of defending the validity of our faith, but now in early postmodernity experientialism is being used to replace our faith. Even for those who are unaware of the postmodern influences of their faith, the church uses a positivistic approach toward understanding atonement while using a narrative approach at experiencing it. This causes many to feel that faith has become more relational, but in fact it has just put undue pressure on the experiences to justify positivism in their doctrine.

Second- There is another danger with the manipulation of the symbol/ ritual line on the other end of the spectrum: when due to the often irrational positivism of the modern church doctrine in explaining scripture, humanity becomes so cynical of the power of symbols it loses its ability to creatively and personally experience God. Symbol can be as real as the original when it comes from a place of personal meaning and significance. When God establishes the meaning of symbol in one’s life then that symbol will eternally carry an immediate connection with God. But when the church manipulates the symbol to justify ritual then it devalues the power of symbols in peoples’ lives. People become suspicious and concerned. Symbols, even ones that have been established through the centuries, can do as much for one’s spiritual development as any other discipline, but when the power of symbol has been devalued to be little more than an instrument of manipulation then a critical element of intimacy is lost.

Challenging what atonement means and who has received isn’t anything new. From fundamentalists who use a rigid form of atonement to exploit its members and guests to extreme liberals who seem to completely devalue Christ’s crucifixion by attempting to connect it to a purely political agenda, arguments surrounding atonement have been around for centuries. But the arguments tend use scripture as a text book and lack the narrative of the story of the relationship between man and God. These text book approaches of using scripture lack the dynamic relationship between man and God. Scripture is a powerful and I believe God inspired resource, but it is not a text book for spiritual maturity. However, when we begin to explore how the symbol of Christ’s love for us as told through the narratives of generations seeking deeper relationship with God found in the bible can be translated into how we take on the ministry of Christ to others then we may begin to stop worrying so much about how we can save others and rather how we can reconcile people with a god who would do anything to have intimacy with them. When we can stop counting our sins and weighing them against the ideal of perfection then we might be free to mature in our faith. And when we start viewing God as our creator who accepts our imperfections and is willing to do whatever is necessary to have a relationship with us anyway then we can celebrate that gift for what it is, the extent to which God would go to know us.