Reflections on the Atonement pt.2
12 Apr
You can read part one of this post here.
As mentioned previously, I think the accusation of divine child abuse is a bit unfair when it comes to the penal-substitutionary atonement (PSA), however aside from that accusation, I do have a few theological issues with the theory.
First, I think the PSA is pretty intertwined with a literal reading of the Genesis creation account, which I now think is outdated in light of an evolutionary understanding of our origins. In many ways the early chapters of Genesis are absolutely central to the PSA because they contain the “why” behind the “what.” How many time have we heard a gospel presentation that begins with an explanation of how we’re fallen and separated from God? Theologically that’s Genesis 1-3 language. Of course, even without a literal reading of those stories you can still talk about sin, the wrath of God, and how Jesus took our place, but without a literal reading of that narrative undergirding it, it simply lacks the biblical “punch” it once did. This is especially true as it pertains to very specific doctrines that come straight out of those chapters – like Original Sin – which is also pretty central to the PSA theory.
The second issue is that the understanding of God embedded within this atonement theory is still quite violent – even without claims of divine child abuse. In the PSA narrative someone has to pay… with blood. God can’t just forgive because He’s bound by some sort of cosmic justice that requires a blood sacrifice be offered to atone for the sins of the people. Just let that sentence sink in. God is somehow “bound” to the need for a bloody sacrifice in order to forgive? What the hell is going on here? How did we go from a non-violent Jesus preaching Abba intimacy with a God who forgives before we even ask (parable of the Prodigal’s Son), to an understanding of the cross as a cosmic economic “transaction” where God requires a payment in order to justify his forgiveness. Technically that’s not even forgiveness. It’s also not the God I see revealed in Jesus.
Finally, as I mentioned in pt.1, I think our understanding of the atonement bleeds over into other parts of our theology, which means that a view of God as a vindictive patriarchal deity who needs a blood sacrifice in order to forgive, whether we’re conscious of it or not, ends up casting a shadow over our entire understanding of the Christian faith. At the risk of sounding dramatic, I believe this shadow (often disguised in language about God’s “justice”) becomes the theological justification for things like a downright sadistic doctrine of a literal/eternal/conscious hell where people are tortured with fire, an eschatology that looks forward to the day when Jesus comes back as a horsed bandit complete with a sword dripping in the blood of his enemies, and a supposedly “Christian” nation that believes in God ordained pre-emptive war which is alo rooted in Old Testament genocidal passages that should embarrass anyone who identifies themselves with the Judeo-Christian tradition. But rather than embarrassment at these passages we actually defend them because we honestly think this is who God is. On the contrary, I think we should take Jesus at his word when he says that if we’ve seen him then we’ve seen the Father, rather than backpedaling on the forgiveness and love of God we’ve come to see in Jesus with comments about how we have to “balance” the love of God’s with his “justice” (which again is normally our code word for violence).
Obviously, I think this atonement theory was a mistake in the history of our tradition. However, what’s strange is that some people feel that by questioning it, I’m questioning an “essential truth’ of the Bible. My problem with this is that fact that the PSA theory was barely mentioned for the first 1,000 years of church history, so anyone who claims that you can’t be a Christian without holding to this supposed “crown jewel” of atonement theories simply doesn’t have church history on their side.
For those who are curious in years past I resonated with the moral influence theory and more recently with Rene Girard’s scapegoat theory of the atonement. I’m reading two of his books now: Violence of the Sacred and Deceit, Desire, and the Novel so there may be a post coming up on those in the weeks to come.
What about the passover and the blood of the lamb being the ‘hedge of protection’ in regard to the plague for example, is that not potentially a ‘type’ that was and also pointed to the ultimate passover lamb, Jesus Christ?
What about Jesus warning about hell and talking about poking out eyeballs and talking about unquenchable fire, just in terms of basic logic how do you get around that if you do not believe in that type of hell and that Jesus is that passover lamb? Maybe I am missing something here and misreading what you are saying, maybe you do belive those things, help me out if you have time. Thanks!
Hey Kyle, I think you can see a certain type there (I think a handful of Biblical writers did) however I’m not sure if there’s a super direct connection between the paschal lamb image – which translated to an atonement would be something like “Jesus died on the cross to save us from death” and the PSA/Paschal Lamb mashup which would say, “I deserved to have my blood spread on these doorposts, but thankfully the lamb has died in my place.” In other words I think you can keep some sort of atonement that has Jesus dying “for us” or even “for our sins” without feeling the need to defend the PSA which takes it a step further with the “substitution”/violence language.
The hell topic definitely deserves it’s own post, however a short answer would be that the fires are described as “infinite” but not the people who are there. At the very least I’d argue for a type of annahilationism b/c the eternality of the soul (which is an important philosophical concept for those arguing for a literal, eternal, conscious hell) wasn’t introduced until much later in Christian theology as a result of good ol’ Aristotle (greek philosophy).
Interesting, I do have trouble with the logic of loving and that toleration of an eternity of that which you don’t subscribe too, the place of reasoning I end up at if that is the case maybe it is that due to the nature of being created in the image of God and the permanence of that nature is not avoidable. That is likely one that cannot be fully known in this age, but I’m sure you know that. Thanks for the thoughtful insight though I was not aware of the Greek philosophy deal.
I was thinking alot about this topic this Easter season. Glad you posted. I had the word “transactional” in my head also. I think the cross speaks on many levels, and I love that once we think we have it all understood, more meaning comes to us. For me, I think “self-sacrifice” speaks the loudest these days. Just the epidemy of giving one-self for others, by demonstrating love and forgiveness in Divine humulity…these are the aspects that resonate with me. It’s my faith that I can connect to that same power outside myself that enables me to walk in simlar fashion as God sees fit. Knowing I will never be called to give myself in that way, it still provides me with the power to extend myself further than I ever could on my own. To be saved from my selfish desires; Jesus is saving me from myself.
Beautiful thoughts Lance. Reminded me of the “self emptying” passage from Philippians 2 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philippians%202&version=NIV