Moral Exemplar A Theory Of Atonement For Now?

Tony Jones has a new short eBook out on atonement theories. One of the thing he points out is that different theories answer different questions. The Ransom theory, (think C.S Lewis The Lion the Witch and The wardrobe) answers the question of how we deal with the devil? (the white witch). The Penal Substitutionary theory, (this is the one you grew up with) answers the question how do we deal with sin?

I'm interested in asking is what is the problem are people dealing with now? And therefore, what is an appropriate theory of atonement to be using.

I'm going to suggest it's not the Ransom theory as almost no one is wrestling with Satan and Satan's power. Anyway, for the past 1000 years most Xns have not been comfortable giving Satan as much power over God as the Ransom theory does. Similarly, I don't think the Penal Substitutionary Atonement theory will be helpful as few people I come across are wrestling with sin. This is not to say that either are not true, in some way, they are just not particularly relevant.

Now, I know there are some "PSA is the gospel" type people thinking this is heresy and I'm sure if we were to ask the average non Xn did they think they were perfect, they'd say no. It's just that they just won't see themselves as so horribly depraved they deserve complete exclusion from God. Now the usual move from a PSA evangelist is to explain that God sees your relatively small list of sins as just as bad as being a serial killer paedophile, hence the non Xn person is deserving of complete exclusion from God. It's not a great argument. Partly because Jesus (who we're claiming is just like God) seemed pretty comfortable hanging with sinners but mainly because it just makes God look like a complete jerk.

With that little aside out of the way we come back to the question, what is the problem people are dealing with now? I'm going to suggest that the question many people are asking is, how do we live in the world? Now, I know that many (including Tony Jones in this homebrewed Xy interview) are looking for a way that Jesus death and resurrection might address the systemic sin in our world, but I don't think we're going to find that. I think it'll be hard to find a theory to address that in the same way that it was hard for early Xns, who under Roman occupation saw similar if not much more extreme examples of systemic sin and injustice.

Whether it's the Roman Empire or our much more elusive capitalist empire. We are still left with the question of how do we live? How do we live when most of our clothing is made in sweatshops and there is not an obvious alternative? How do we live when taxes are being spent on war but there is no way to redirect our taxes from war to health care? How do we change the way refugees are treated when both electable political parties treat refugees appallingly? I believe, How do we live in a broken, corrupt, fallen world is the big question of our age. It is the question particularly in the west because we are not mere serfs trapped within a oppressive feudal system. No, we have a sense of freedom, a sense of connectedness and and a sense of potential to affect change that is perhaps unprecedented.

With this in mind I believe it is time to revisit the earliest atonement theory, The moral exemplar. This theory is that Jesus Christ is seen as a moral exemplar, who calls us toward a better life, both individually and corporately. Tony Jones talks more about this in this post.

Part of the problem of the Moral Exemplar theory is that Jesus death and resurrection seems not only secondary but completely dispensable.  I'm not sure what earlier adherents of the theory would have argued but, to me it's completely indispensable. Here is why. For most of the people I talk to the question is not "What is good?" or "was Martin Luther King or Oscar Romero good?" (to name but two Xn heroes whose actions changed systemic injustice) instead the question is how can we do the same?

How can we with our overwhelming senses of responsibility to get a good job, buy a house and a car, send our kids to a decent school, save for retirement and insure our health and our stuff. How can we overcome this all consuming reality and do something radical, something dangerous that might change the world? To do such things is too risky, too irresponsible. To challenge this way of thinking we need someone to break the current time space reality and show that reality is different, we need God to show us that what we think is reality is not actually reality. This, I contend is exactly what Jesus death and resurrection does for us. Like the red pill that Neo takes in the Matrix, Jesus opens our eyes to a new reality, a reality where the deaths of people like Martin Luther King and Oscar Romero are not deaths in vain. Where our greatest fear, death, is taken away and we are freed from spending all our time making our lives as safe and secure as possible. Indeed we are free to live in the radical way that Jesus did. "For freedom Christ has set us free".

Christus Victor - Alternative to Penal Substitutionary Atonement

Usually I don't just copy and paste other peoples stuff. But, Tony Jones wrote such a great summary of Christus Victor, an alternative understanding of the Atonement, I've reposted it below. You can read it on his blog here.

In 1930, a relatively unknown Swedish bishop and theologian revived an understanding of the atonement that had largely been forgotten for 1,000 years. Gustaf Aulén’s book, Christus Victor: An Historical Study of the Three Main Types of the Atonement was translated into English the next year, and it’s stayed in print ever since.

The Christus Victor model, Aulén argues, was the predominant theory for the first millennium of the church, and it was held by the majority of the church fathers whom we still revere. Along came Anselm and changed the game — for reasons I’ve written about before and will discuss in an upcoming post — and CV was relegated to history’s rubbish bin. Until Aulén.

Today, CV has had something of a resurgence. ;) That’s been led by Greg Boyd – who’s personal brand was called, until recently, Christus Victor Ministries — and others.

CV falls under a broader umbrella called the Ransom Theory. In this understanding, the original sin of Adam and Eve placed all of humanity under subjugation to Satan. Christ, the second person of the Trinity, came to Earth and died, giving his life as a ransom for many.

At this point, CV may sound like the penal substitution model that many of us grew up with. But that’s where Aulén said we’re wrong. The early church did not understand the death of Christ as paying a penalty in some transactional sense that only God’s son could pay. The crucifixion is not, in that sense, cosmically necessary to reconcile God and humanity.

Instead, Christ’s death is God’s victory over sin and death. God conquers death by fully entering into it. God conquers Satan by using the very means employed by the Evil One.

Thus, the crucifixion is not a necessary transaction to appease a wrathful and justice-demanding deity, but an act of divine love.

God entered fully into the bondage of death, turned it inside out by making it a moment of victory, and thereby liberates humanity to live lives of love without the fear of death.

It’s a beautiful thing, the crucifixion, in this view. And, for those of us who are robustly trinitarian, it maintains an egalitarian view of the Trinity — one in which the Son and Spirit are not junior partners in the atonement.

Atonement Alternative

I've often written critically about atonement illustrations like Nicky Gumbell's Nazi camp story. So I thought it was time to write an alternative illustration. Of course like other illustrations it doesn't capture the entire gospel it just captures one aspect.

The hike started to take a turn for the worse. We had reached the summit of the mountain and we were on our way back when we discovered an avalanche had cut off the path home. The sun was starting to set and jack, our guide, confirmed our fears that the moans in the distance were indeed bears. Jack lead us to the opening of an abandoned mine. "this is going to be our only way out" he suggested "I've never been down inside but it might lead out somewhere pass the bears". A few decided to stay at the mouth of the mine most of us followed jack. The mine shafts got narrower and narrower. Some of the lager and more claustrophobic in the group stopped to see if we would come back after hitting a dead end. The rest of use winded our way single file through the mine until we came to a small hole where we could hear running water below. The opening was big enough for one and the ledge below was big enough for just two. The stream was going to go somewhere and it was big enough to for someone to swim in you just needed gills to breath until you found air somewhere. Jack turned to the hiker who had gone down with him and said he was going to swim. Through and see where it went. A while went by went by until jack resurfaced "it gets us out just take a deep breath and follow me. Don't try and come back though you'll probably drown and block the path for everyone else." So jack left then a second hiker got down on the ledge with the first hiker. By the time I got there this story had been relayed to me by at least a dozen people. As it was my time to relay the story back to the person behind me. I wondered why I was believing it could everyone be just going to there death? I held my breath but my faith in jack and swam believing life would greet me on the other side.

Non Penal Substitution Atonement Analogy from Brian McLaren

I know it's been a while since I've banged on about atonement analogies other than penal substitution. But, everytime I do it seems to be the one subject that generates more emails (rather than comments) than anything else. In his latest tbook, Everything Must Change " Brian McLaren outlines a sickness model of atonement - which he describes as "emerging view", paralleled with the good old penal substitution - which he describes as "conventional view". What impressed me most was the succinct way that he packages the explanation, which I have written out below.

The Human Situation: What is the story we find ourselves in?

Conventional View: God created the world as perfect, but because our primal ancestors, Adam and Eve, did not maintain the absolute perfection demanded by God, God has irrevocably determined that the entire universe and all it contains will be destroyed, and the souls of all human beings—except for those specifically exempted—will be forever punished for their imperfection in hell.’

Emerging View: God created the world as good, but human beings—as individuals, and as groups—have rebelled against God and filled the world with evil and injustice. God wants to save humanity and heal it from its sickness, but humanity is hopelessly lost and confused, like sheep without a shepherd, wandering further and further into lostness and danger. Left to themselves, human beings will spiral downward in sickness and evil.

Basic Questions: What questions did Jesus come to answer?

Conventional View: Since everyone is doomed to hell, Jesus seeks to answer one or both of these questions: How can individuals be saved from eternal punishment in hell and instead go to heaven after they die? How can God help individuals be happy and successful until then?

Emerging View: Since the human race is in such desperate trouble, Jesus seeks to answer this question: What must be done about the mess we’re in? The mess refers both to the general human condition and to its specific outworking among his contemporaries living under domination by the Roman Empire and who were confused and conflicted as to what they should do to be liberated.

Jesus’ Message: How did Jesus respond to the crisis?

Conventional View: Jesus says, in essence, “If you want to be among those specifically qualified to escape being forever punished for your sins in hell, you must repent of your individual sins and believe that my Father punished me on the cross so he won’t have to punish you in hell. Only if you believe this will you go to heaven when the earth is destroyed and everyone else is banished to hell.” This is the good news.

Emerging View: Jesus says, in essence, “I have been sent by God with this good news—that God loves humanity; even in its lostness and sin. God graciously invites everyone and anyone to turn from his or her current path and follow a new way. Trust me and become my disciple, and you will be transformed, and you will participate in the transformation of the world, which is possible, beginning right now.” This is the good news.

Purpose of Jesus: Why is Jesus important?

Conventional View: Jesus came to solve the problem of “original sin,” meaning that he helps qualified individuals not to be sent to hell for their sin or imperfection. In a sense, Jesus saves these people from God, or more specifically, from the righteous wrath of God, which sinful human beings deserve because they have not perfectly fulfilled God’s just expectations, expressed in God’s moral laws. This escape from punishment is not something they earn or achieve, but rather a free gift they receive as an expression of God’s grace and love. Those who receive it enjoy a personal relationship with God and seek to serve and obey God, which produces a happier life on Earth and more rewards in heaven.

Emerging View: Jesus came to become the Saviour of the world, meaning he came to save the earth and all it contains from its ongoing destruction because of human evil. Through his life and teaching, through his suffering, death, and resurrection, he inserted into human history a seed of grace, truth, and hope that can never be defeated. This seed will, against all opposition and odds, prevail over the evil and injustice of humanity and lead to the world’s ongoing transformation into the world God dreams of. All who find in Jesus God’s hope and truth discover the privilege of participating in his ongoing work of personal and global transformation and liberation from evil and injustice. As part of his transforming community, they experience liberation from the fear of death and condemnation. This is not something they earn or achieve, but rather a free gift they receive as an expression of God’s grace and love.

Substitutional Atonement back to haunt me

Well I thought after my second last post I'd put the substitutional atonement thing behind me. So, you can imagine my sup rise when I rocked up to a church meeting to find out that we were going to be watching Bill Hybells speak on "the power of clarity". Seemed ok until he came to about one third of the way through the talk where he was about to summarise the entire Xn message in just two words. I was wondering what could that be... "Love God and Love others" perhaps? (the summary that Jesus used) You might be able to squeeze that into three words but not two. Then Bill did his big reveal to show the two words he had written on a big piece of paper "Substitutional Atonement". Needless to say I had some issues with what Bill had to say and whilst many people watching thought it was all great I voiced some concern and have written a quick out line of what my concerns are here for my own peace of mind.

The first difficulty was the issue of clarity and his idea that “Leaders owe people clarity”. I’m not sure that this is true. I’d like to ask clarity about what exactly? Having clarity about absolutely everything is fundamentalism at it’s worst, on the other hand having clarity about nothing is liberalism at it’s worst. Two extremes I’m sure we’re keen to avoid. If parishioners “cry out for clarity” (as Hybels suggests) is it the leaders roles to say “do this” or is it the leaders role to give the skills for the parishioners work it out for themselves?

Hybel’s seemed to be suggesting adopting a business model to church and there is certainly a lot that church can learn from the business model way of doing things. But, since business are not always the most ethical things in and of themselves there maybe things worth avoiding as well. So, my question is what parts of the business model do we adapt to church? Does the average business model give room for the spirit to speak through least qualified person and least likely person?

My quick thought is that we need to have a clarity of values and culture as a church but need to be fluid about our strategies and programs as they need to respond to the needs of the church and community.

The second brief difficulty I had was when Hybels described society as “pluralistic and confused”. I’m not sure if these two things necessarily go together. A divergent set of opinions about spirituality amongst a group of people may in fact indicate that people may have an increasing clarity about what they believe rather than a confusion.

The third difficulty is that “Substitutionary Atonement” (SA) is the key Xn message. Certainly SA is one key thread that runs through the biblical story but it isn’t all there is to Xy. SA is far more narrow than the new testament idea of grace or the Hebrew idea of hesed. By focusing on the SA thread I think we are in danger of missing out on the rich tapestry of the story of God interacting with humanity.

Furthermore, I wonder if in a similar way we reduce sin to just personal immorality. I fear that when we do this any evangelism needs to begin with convincing someone that they are sinner who deserves to die before moving onto the love of God bit.

That SA is only one thread in the overall Biblical story is illustrated in Hybel’s idea that the one question people will be asked when they die is “who will atone for your sin?” This does not sit at all well with the sheep and goats story that Jesus tells in Matthew 25.

I think an over emphasis on SA is one reason why as a church we are missing people under 30. Certainly Jesus disciples did not follow Jesus based on an understanding about SA. Since so many people seem to like Jesus but not church I wonder if we need to build on communicating Jesus rather than communicating the church doctrine of SA no matter how well it encapsulates much of what we believe.

Another problem with the “what will happen to you when you die?” approach to evangelism is that for some it can reduce Xy to an insurance policy against an angry God. All of us would still be Xns now even if we had a way of becoming a Xn 10 minutes before we die. What makes us choose to do this, I think, is far more appealing many to non-Xns than the “what will you say to God when you die?” approach.

Let me reiterate that I do not think we should get rid of SA and that I think it is an important thread in the Biblical story. However it is not the only thread in the Biblical tapestry.

My Fourth and final difficulty was that as a church “we are message centric”. We certainly have a message but are we message centric? If we are then why do we run a play group or give bread to people in need? Is it merely as a carrot to get people in to hear the message or does it have an intrinsic value of it’s own. Again to quote Matthew 25 the people who are in with God in this passage are not in because of the message but because of how they loved or served others. I’d say that as Xns we are love centric which means we serve out of love and it also means that we tell our message out of love.

Ok, that’s it. Maybe there's some deeper psychological reason why my brain seems to be obbsessed with this at the moment.

A New Analogy for Atonement?

Okay in the last post I suggested Substitution as a pretty crappy analogy for Jesus death and resurrection. Not only because as far as analogies go it is pretty flawed but because it can also romanticise suffering. Often I have heard Xns talking about what it must be like to live in a country where Xy is actively persecuted and almost secretly wishing they were there, as it would make them feel better about being Xn.

Firstly I think forgiveness is different from being saved from sin. God already forgives in the Old Testament and there I can’t see why with much mercy God would not continue to do this. Perhaps, however we are saved from sin or more specifically a sinful way of living because Jesus shows a new way of living. Of which Jesus death is crucial because it shows us that it is possible to live a life of love that is not oppressive where a just life of love is rewarded with eternal life.

The original Matrix film tries to work in the whole death and resurrection thing into it’s narrative when during the final battle Neo dies and then after a 3 seconds rises to life. Perhaps a better death and resurrection an analogy maybe the eat the red pill or the blue pill scene. It is here that Neo leaves his world (dies to it) and later he is resurrected when he returns to the Matrix.

Neo sees his world in a new reality and lives accordingly. We don't have to conform to the sinful ways of this world because we see a new reality we live a life free from sin.