Models of Atonement. An awful big topic for a psychology student, but feedback is welcomed.
I may have blogged on this topic at some point in the past, however, as my degree of certainty about this is as scanty as your memory of said blog is likely to be, I shall blog again (or for the first time, whichever the case may be). On an understanding of the work of the death and resurrection of Christ: What are the key ideas, metaphors or language we use to discuss this event? What are the effects of our focus on this event, particularly to the exclusion of Jesus’ life and incarnation?
I am not a theologian. I confess that, having read only a few of my blogs heretofore, you would not be wrong in considering that I fancy myself something of a theological thinker, but an expert I am not. I am not equipped to give a thoroughgoing description of all views of Christ’s resurrection, death, and incarnation (chronologically incorrect, I know, but, interestingly, perhaps the way we have them prioritized?). With that said, here are a few ideas that’ve been rolling around my neural cortex. (My thoughts are generated largely by a class being taken called Reconciliation and the Healing of Persons, given by Ray S. Anderson.)
Do we understand resurrection too exclusively by using a substitution atonement model (SAM)? In plain English, the SAM refers to the idea that our sins incur a cost which can only be paid with our death. Jesus died in our stead, thereby releasing us of guilt (or cost) of sin. God sees Jesus’ death, considers it satisfactory for my sin debts and marks them out of his account book. A very judicial model, but one which, I think, sometimes demonstrates questionable judiciousness. Why is God so vengeful? Why is he so hungry for death? And why, assuming God is a rational, kind sort of being, would he welcome the death of an innocent for the sins of the unholy masses? The SAM model is not wrong, only limited. Anderson suggests the addition to our thinking of other models for understanding the atonement. In particular, I find helpful an approach which takes seriously the implications of Jesus’ incarnation and reconciliation.
The SAM can make the mistake of considering the incarnation nothing more than a necessary qualification for execution. If Jesus wasn’t human, it’d be hard for him to die on a cross. But is the incarnation of such secondary importance? I think not. The incarnation is evidence of a God who loves with such profundity that he is willing to enter into the human sphere and to experience all our joys and suffering firsthand. He desired nearness to us, in all our sin and rejection of him. He wished to know us as we truly are. Likewise, he wished us to know him. He took on a body, a face, and a language which those around him could understand. I believe reconciliation begins at Bethlehem rather than at Calvary. Sin did break our relationship with God, and God crossed the gulf, became the man Jesus, and presented himself vulnerable, willing to listen, and willing to relate. He had such solidarity with us, that he took our forsakenness upon himself, dying on a cross separated from and abandoned by God. He knows what it is like to suffer, and has a keen understanding of what separation from God is.
Of course, the story does not (thankfully) end with the cross. Jesus proclaimed God’s nearness-incarnate nearness-and we executed him as a blasphemer. But there is no rejection we can muster which God is unwilling to overcome by extending relationship. Jesus’ execution stands as our attempt at a last word to God. “We will not be reconciled! We refuse to be brought near!” He meets our last word with resurrection. Death will not separate us from God. Jesus lives, bearing full knowledge of the depth of human suffering and holding out a promise that God is gracious, eager to forgive, and willing to know and be known.
In the SAM, we can make the mistake of thinking that atonement is primarily about God: Jesus’ death appeased God’s anger and payed the debt we owed to him. He is satisfied. With a reconciliation model, we remember that it is primarily people who need atonement. We have a God who understands our suffering and the reasons suffering leads to rejection. He wishes to suffer with us, and to know us in all our anger at him. What can I do to God that he has not already experienced? What can I do to God that would surpass his willingness to love? The message of the cross is that no sin keeps us from God’s love. How willing to be loved are we?
November 7th, 2005 at 3:59 pm
Good topic. I agree, the life, death, and resurrection of Christ is not a simple subject, yet sometimes we reduce it to such.
I always come back to John 3:16. It was because God loved the world that he sent his Son. You’re right, Christ’s death is not just a substitute for our own, it is much more.
November 8th, 2005 at 3:22 pm
Wow. You are reminding me of the way C.S. Lewis writes. Good brain exercise and it shines a light on the unimaginable depths of His love for and goodness to us. My mind is always boggled at the idea that He loved me so much that He made me, one of a kind, to be me, so that He could have relationship with me. And that, knowing full well how flawed and full of failures I am. He loves each of us because He made us to be who we are and because He is who He is. How willing are we to be loved? I think that’s THE question.
November 9th, 2005 at 2:59 pm
I have been thinking a lot about your wonderful post on the models of atonement. I think you are correct in your assessment of the reconciliation model. If I could give any limited critique, I might suggest we be careful that we not too narrowly define what the atonement is. What follows are highlights from a book by Leon Morris entitled The Atonement.
In addition to reconciliation, the atonement also brings redemption for our sins (note Rom 3:24, Eph 1:7, Heb 9:12, etc.) Morris notes, “Redemption is a picturesque way of looking at what Chris did on the cross. Vividly it brought before first-century men some important aspects of the salvation Christ died to bring. Specifically it emphasizes three truths: People are by nature slaves to sin, Christ paid the price of freedom and the redeemed are free.”
The atonement also brings propitiation. Morris writes, “What Christ did on the cross was propitiation, the taking of such action that wrath no longer works against us. He has made the offering that turns away wrath and as we put our trust in him we need fear it no more. This means a wonderful assurance of peace for the Christian. In the end we have nothing to fear, for ‘he is the propitiation for our sins.’”
Finally the atonement brings justification – the church has nailed it on this point as Denise noted with the SAM model. The Gospel message is clearly present by the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 “3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,” This act, brings about our justification. Morris writes, “Sinners refuse God’s good gift, shut themselves up to disobedience, and remain in the group of those on whom the verdict at the end of the day must be ‘Guilty.’ To be justified we must come in faith, believing, trusting. As we put our trust in him we are justified…Justification touches our lives by brining home to us two great truths. One is that we are saved in the way that is right, for the new and living way does not sit loose to moral realities. The other is that Christ’s justifying work is a challenge to us to believe. ‘It is with your heart that you believe and are justified.’” Christ becomes the substitute, our justification.
Each model has its strengths and weaknesses, however each serves as an eloquent picture of what Jesus accomplished for us on the cross of Calvary.
November 9th, 2005 at 3:31 pm
Agreed-each model has its own strengths and weaknesses. I am arguing for a widening of our understanding by including other models into our salvation concept. We all get justification by faith. In fact, it may be the only model we do get. But salvation is more than justfication. If all we are is justified, I think our Christianity tends to look like the sort where, once you’re saved, you’re done. End of journey. The most important thing has ocurred. Any growth thereafter is gravy on the mashed potatoes of justification salvation. Inclusion of other models of what salvation does helps us see that Christianity is more than a call to “get saved.” In fact, salvation is meant to lead to a life of profound change. If Jesus not only saved, but also reconciled, then we’ve got more of a journey ahead of us. If Jesus not only died a human death, but also lived a human life, then he has a more profound understanding of life and suffering than we know. Multiple models also help us develop a range of evangelistic messages that depart from the standard, “You, sinner, are going to hell unless….” message. Not that that message isn’t true, it’s just not the only way to talk about the gospel message. Also, and this may really be a heresy, I’ve heard a professor say we’ve become too Pauline in our theology. Is there room for expansion of our understanding of salvation beyond Paul’s (or our typical interpretation of Paul’s) message? I.e. how would Paul write or speak to today’s culture? Would it sound exactly the same?
November 9th, 2005 at 3:55 pm
agreed!