Apophatica

This is probably the biggest sticking point for Christians.  In my last post, I talked about salvation, but we are left with the question of the methodology of salvation and the resulting effect.  There are many theories of atonement and most Christians subscribe to one theory or another.  So strict are folks on their insistence on a particular theory, in fact, that one’s atonement theory is usually considered “the gospel.”  John 3:16 says that “God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son and whosever believes in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life.”  Yeah, ok, I knew you knew that already.

I won’t get too much into “gospel” because that will be for another day, but many hang their hats on this verse seeing it as a proof text for God giving the world Jesus as a sacrifice.  This leads us to the meaning of atonement.  We will discuss sin more in depth later, but the general idea is that we are all sinners (whether a habitual type of learning or something that is original from birth – more on this later) and are in need of reconciliation with God.  To say that we are in need of atonement generally assumes that God cannot stand us otherwise.  In conservative evangelicalism, there are many cliched coin phrases and one of the most prevalent is: “God is perfect and therefore cannot stand to look upon sin.  This is why God needed a sacrifice to make good for our sins so that he could forgive us and reconcile us to him.”  Ever heard that before?  Thought so.

The earliest theory of atonement stated that a ransom had to be paid (Ransom Theory) in order for sinful humankind to be reconciled to God.  Thus, it was necessary for Jesus to die on the cross so that our sins could be paid for.  This begs the question of whom this debt is to be paid to.  It was assumed that Satan was the eternal punisher once humans were turned over by God post-judgment and so the debt was paid to Satan.  This is rather troublesome to me as it was for many in the early church, but is still one of the prevalent theories today.  How one could assume that God has to pay Satan (assuming the existence of Satan or that Satan is what we have redefined it to be – again, more on this in a later post) and that there is no other way.

Next, is the Recapitulation Theory.  This originated in the second century with Irenaeus and said simply that where Adam had failed, Jesus had succeeded.  That is, based on Paul’s description of Jesus in Romans as “the new Adam,” Adam was disobedient and caused the Fall of Humankind, but Jesus was obedient all the way to the cross, thus reversing the effects of Adam’s sin.  Again, this doesn’t sit well because it assumes that something cosmic had to be done to reverse the effects of sin and this “something” was killing someone on a cross.

Then, we have the Satisfaction Theory.  This one has Jesus heading up Golgotha to the cross singing “I can’t get no . . . satisfaction . . . .”  Ok, not really, but kind of.  This theory was developed by Anselm in the 11th century and was a response to the crusades.  Anselm was deeply disturbed that so many young men were going off to die in the name of God when there was no “good” atonement theory to insure that their deaths were not meaningless.  He therefore developed a theory that said that Jesus offered himself up as a debt payment to God on behalf of sinful humankind.  This was the beginning of the “by faith alone” theology that would develop in post-Reformation Protestantism.  Having faith that Jesus “died for our sins” was sufficient to reap the benefits and obtain eternal life and forgiveness.  An important factor in this theory is that Jesus had to be a God-man in order for the sacrifice to fulfill the debt.

11th century theologian Peter Abelard disagreed with Anselm’s position and came up with his own theory.  He did not like the idea that somebody needed to die to appease God’s wrath, so he came up with the Moral-Example theory.  He opined that Jesus was a moral example for humankind that, by allowing himself to be tortured by the Roman authorities because of his subversive acts of love and compassion, he softened the hearts of people and led them to changing their lives and minds (repentance).  Thus, Jesus did not die to affect God’s judgment or mood, but rather to change the hearts of humans.  If I had to subscribe to any of these theories, it would be this one.  I still, however, think there are other options beyond these.

All of these theories are problematic for me because they are all violent.  They all assume that Jesus had to die and some assume that he had to be God in order to do so.  So many areas of theology lead to a cop-out that says “God works in mysterious ways” or “Who can understand God?”  I agree that God is mysterious and we can NEVER fully comprehend the Divine, but this definitely does not mean that we should not continue our pursuit of the Divine presence and some semblance of understanding.  If we wonder how God could kill God-self (which is necessary if God needs appeasing, but the sacrifice also has to be God) then we should engage this and consider other options.  (This led to the development of the Trinity which we will discuss in a later post) God did not decree one option.  We have to keep in mind that ALL atonement theories are just that – theories that were developed over time by human beings to ease their discomfort over existing theories.

I would propose another way to consider atonement.  Some have called atonement an “at-one-ment” with God.  I like this idea.  I believe atonement has nothing to do with killing anybody, not even Jesus.  Jesus dying on a cross was the natural result of opposing the Roman authorities.  Too often we think of Jesus (and maybe the two thieves with him) as being the only one who was ever killed on a cross.  The cross was the device of the times for the death penalty.  It was no different from a gallows, an electric chair, a guillotine, or being burned at the stake.  It was the method of capital punishment employed by the Romans.  Instead of appeasing a wrathful child-abuser in the sky who can find no other way to calm down than to kill his own kid, how about we see atonement as BOTH God and us moving closer together?  God is seeking us just as we are seeking God.  By shedding our illusions, distractions, and attachments, we can be more aware of the presence of God.  By “listening” to the Divine within us and becoming one with it, we experience an at-one-ment.  In this, we can experience full reconciliation with God and in co-creation and relationship with God work to redeem the world and the systems of violence and oppression that have subverted it.

This entry was posted on August 25, 2014 at 3:43 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.