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.
10 comments:
Cheers Chris. I must say I identify with the emerging view much more strongly than the conventional. There seems to be only slight differences between the views but they are quite important.
I agree that the differences seem to be in semantics. McLaren uses different words (perhaps "cooler" among emergents) but my question is which is biblical. Call me an old schooler but I find much more biblical support for the "conventional" view than McLaren's.
Thanks for the comments Pete and Seeking Disciple.
SD I think that the differences are stronger than just semantics. None the less on the question of which is more Biblical I think that depends on which parts of the Bible you read and what you have in mind when you read them. Penal substitution is one of the atonement narratives found in the Bible but when we think of it as THE attonement narrative we can be in danger of seeing only penal substitution and nothing else.
I personally prefer McLaren's narrative not becasue it's cooler but becasue it pays attention to parts of God's character and the Biblical story that penal substitution doesn't.
This will always be the case of any short atonement narrative that tries to encapsulate the Biblical narrative. So it would be a mistake to just supplant one with another.
The full meaning Christ's act on the cross is a mystery. It is beyond our comprehension intellectually to even begin to explain it. We cannot have one right explanation of it. Many explanations offer insights into what it meant. Plumping for one theory over another is as pointless as trying to count the stars.
That Christ's sacrifice brought life and healing from sin is the one thing we can say for certain. Our glimpses into the meaning of it comes only through revelation, through the grace of God. All explanations at sometime in our life might have meaning.
Heya Chris,
I have found in my reading of MacLaren an irony: that is -- I have found him to unfairly portray those to whom he wishes to address. The Conventional View is a bit of a straw man. I don't know anyone that holds to the CV!
(There are a few that hold the conventional view and only the conventional view. But not many.)
I find it ironic, because it is old politics: Blue State - Red State. And so divisive.
(I have found the same with Bell, and to a lesser degree Wright. Certainly you see it in Driscoll. But Driscoll is not trying to be a conciliatory person. MacLaren et at are claiming that the new Christianity is a fair one -- not a demonizing one.)
Am I wrong?
Hey Anonymous,
I'd agree with what your saying. Part of my reason for posting was not that I disagree with penal substitution but that it only gives a glimpse to the meaning of the atonement. McLarens sickness model gives us another glimpse, which should not necessarily replace but add to a string of analogies that help us to understand the atonement.
Hey Justin,
Thanks for your thoughts good to hear from you.
I think that McLaren does tend to caricature the conventional view and caricaturing anything is often unhelpful. Having said that I have still met plenty of people who hold to the conventional view but probably more in a desire to simplify the gospel the problem is that they don't state that this is just a simplification. This was certainly my experience of Alpha, Bill Hybels and two ways to live (remember this). Perhaps the point is that this not neccesariliy what people believe but what others hear them saying (as was the case with the two ways to live cartoon).
The Red Blue state divide is something I don't get to experience how devisive or old politics that is being in Australia. Are you wrong? I don't know perhaps it depends on the context of what's being said. I certainly think conservative evangelical Xns have tended to emphasise personal morality to the exclusion of soical justice. However getting Xns to vote on party lines is never going to be helpful I'd hope the Kingodm of God transcends bothe Republican and Democrat policy.
When I say Blue State-Red State, I don't mean politically.
I mean that as a metaphor of how to portray the other side: Boil is down to its simplest form (which is always inadequate) and then blow it down.
They do it in politics. And I have found that they do it in churches.
Your post (or rather MacLaren's quote) is classic Blue State-Red State.
Even Two Ways to Live is built on the doctrines of Creation, brokenness, pain, restoration, healing and Lordship and Justice.
I just want to be fair.
Hey Justin,
Thanks for the clarification. I can see your point and my context probably isn't helpful. I haven't read heaps of McLaren but he and other US emerging types I've heard seem to be arguing to add to the pool of atonement narratives rather than replace penal substitution.
Anyone who doubts the ubiquity of the Conventional View -- at least in American politics -- needs to read a newspaper. I can imagine no justification for a failure to recognize this.
However, sometimes people need reminders. Therefore, I suggest that a person google the following:
Pat Robertson. Fred Phelps. Jerry Falwell. Dominionism. Christian Reconstructionism. Theonomy.
Post a Comment