Atonement

Atonement

By Prof. John P. Middleton

We may have misjudged, mismanaged and misconstrued Christ’s role with regard to atonement.

First, let me offer the definition of atonement from the Catholic Encyclopedia.

The word atonement, which is almost the only theological term of English origin, has a curious history. The verb "atone", from the adverbial phrase "at one" (M.E. at oon), at first meant to reconcile, or make "at one"; from this it came to denote the action by which such reconciliation was effected, e.g. satisfaction for all offense or an injury. Hence, in Catholic theology, the Atonement is the Satisfaction of Christ, whereby God and the world are reconciled or made to be at one. "For God indeed was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself" (2 Corinthians 5:19). The Catholic doctrine on this subject is set forth in the sixth Session of the Council of Trent, chapter ii. Having shown the insufficiency of Nature, and of Mosaic Law the Council continues:

Whence it came to pass, that the Heavenly Father, the Father of mercies and the God of all comfort (2 Corinthians 1, 3), when that blessed fullness of the time was come (Galatians 4:4) sent unto men Jesus Christ, His own Son who had been, both before the Law and during the time of the Law, to many of the holy fathers announced and promised, that He might both redeem the Jews, who were under the Law and that the Gentiles who followed not after justice might attain to justice and that all men might receive the adoption of sons. Him God had proposed as a propitiator, through faith in His blood (Romans 3:25), for our sins, and not for our sins only, but also for those of the whole world (I John ii, 2).

More than twelve centuries before this, the same dogma was proclaimed in the words of the Nicene Creed, "who for us men and for our salvation, came down, took flesh, was made man; and suffered. "And all that is thus taught in the decrees of the councils may be read in the pages of the New Testament. For instance, in the words of Our Lord, "even as the Son of man is not come to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give His life a redemption for many" (Matthew 20:28); or of St. Paul, "Because in him, it hath well pleased the Father that all fulness should dwell; and through him to reconcile all things unto himself, making peace through the blood of his cross, both as to the things that are on earth, and the things that are in heaven." (Colossians 1:19-20).

The great doctrine thus laid down in the beginning was further unfolded and brought out into clearer light by the work of the Fathers and theologians. And it may be noted that in this instance the development is chiefly due to Catholic speculation on the mystery, and not, as in the case of other doctrines, to controversy with heretics. At first we have the central fact made known in the Apostolic preaching, that mankind was fallen and was raised up and redeemed from sin by the blood of Christ. But it remained for the pious speculation of Fathers and theologians to enter into the meaning of this great truth, to inquire into the state of fallen man, and to ask how Christ accomplished His work of Redemption. By whatever names or figures it may be described, that work is the reversal of the Fall, the blotting out of sin, the deliverance from bondage, the reconciliation of mankind with God. And it is brought to pass by the Incarnation, by the life, the sufferings, and the death of the Divine Redeemer. All this may be summed up in the word Atonement. This, is so to say, the starting point.

In order to deal with the doctrine of atonement, substitutionary or not, we have to acknowledge, as the Catholic Encyclopedia suggests, that “that work is the reversal of the Fall, the blotting out of sin, the deliverance from bondage, the reconciliation of mankind with God. And it is brought to pass by the Incarnation, by the life, the sufferings, and the death of the Divine Redeemer.”

Several allegations need to be excised.

1.      It is the work of reconciliation, a reversal of the Fall of Adam and Eve or “original sin”.

2.      The work is a deliverance from the “bondage”, we assume, only of “sin”, but could we also include “absence from God”?

3.       It represents the reconciliation of Man and God.

4.      It is brought to pass by the Incarnation, the life, the sufferings, the death of the Divine Redeemer, Jesus the Christ.

The question then arises as to what we have to believe as Christians in order to embrace this doctrine.

Regarding the first observation, it appears we should accept “Original Sin” not as metaphor, but as the exact fate of humankind resulting from the “Fall” as literally described in Genesis. Should we then accept the Genesis story of the Fall and disregard other “creation” stories in Genesis? Must we accept “the doctrine of “Original Sin” without question in order to call ourselves “Christian”? Can we consider the story of Eden in a metaphorical sense to describe human/God alienation? What happens to the role of Christ if we refuse to accept “Original Sin” as dogma?

Regarding the second observation, Christ clearly seems to provide a bridge between God and Man by his own sayings, his life, his ministry, his presence or incarnation. That he “delivers” us from alienation into relationship, would be difficult to refute.  Every word he utters and the Gospels as a group reaffirm that deliverance, that bridge, that relationship.

Regarding the third observation, “reconciliation” implies restoration of something that was lost. Without Original Sin what was lost? When and how was it lost? Without a literal Genesis/Eden, what were things like before it was lost?

Once again we are sent to the literal meaning, the fundamental story of Genesis as the ONLY or at least MAJOR explanation for atonement.

For many practicing Christians, that is not sufficient.  Nor should it be.

If I were to avow that we have hitched Jesus star to an ancient, perhaps confused oral story, without much merit or proof; that we have limited his role to one of atonement instead of a more proper focus on “wisdom pathway or Jubilee” or “Good News”; that we have created a Calvary story that satisfies the indentured ignorance of the ancient blood sacrifice of the animals to appease an angry God; that by so doing we are perpetuating a focus that does little to help our theology and nothing at all to help us understand Christ’s real work, would you have issues? Yes, you probably would.

You might first say “Jesus knew he would die and asked God to take the cup from him and then became reconciled to his fate”.

I would answer “yea, verily”. But how does the fact that he knew he would die exonerate atonement?

“What would his death then be for?” you ask.

“Ah”, I say.  Exactly.

We are so focused on the death for atonement, we see nothing else.  How about some other possibilities?

a.       To indicate we die as all animals die, but it is not the end.

b.      To indicate God’s intentional plan for us that transcends all worlds and earthly domains.

c.       To reassure us that despite suffering we will end in glorification.

d.      To exemplify man’s perfidy and cruelty.

e.      To show the path of Rome/the world is flawed.

f.         To show we must die to “this world” to transcend.  

 

“But the blood and suffering….Mel Gibsons vision……!

What about it.  The Romans were cruel, death had been decreed, what else do we suppose might have happened? Is the torture of Christ necessary for relationship with God. Is pain a requirement for heaven/transcendence or is it a symbol of Man’s finite cruelty opposed to God’s eternal love? Did God decree the cruelty or did mankind? Must we humble ourselves before God in pain before we can have a relationship with Him?

“But substitutionary atonement….”, you say.

If you mean Christ’s finite suffering for a few hours/days before his death was somehow a sop to pay God for all mankind’s transgressions until then, I might ask what sort of motive God has to require that sort of cruelty? An object lesson?  A Blood sacrifice required in some pagan ritual as previously noted? Many prisoners of war have endured far more specific and heinous torture for far longer periods of time.  Is it really such a momentous physical sacrifice?

No!  While the death of Christ may have supernal meaning, the torture, blood and suffering have no meaning beyond human cruelty demonstrated.

Earlier, we noted that the Catholic Encyclopedia speculated atonement “-is brought to pass by the Incarnation, the life, the sufferings, the death of the Divine Redeemer, Jesus the Christ.

If we can use the word “suffering” in the same way the Buddha did, that all life is suffering because of our misplaced egoistic desires, we might have little argument with the above citation. But to offer Passion Week suffering as expiation for our sins is terribly limiting and not very much in keeping with our God of “Love”.

How do we define “sin”; as the agent for loss of the kingdom?  Christ does not seem to have described it that way.  He seems to indicate it is more “alienation” from God. We typically have seen Jesus death as “eliminating” Original Sin, but certainly not present sin. His role in expiating present sin is not one of expiation, but one of offering an alternative, the bridge to God.

Our focus is simply too limiting.  We need to see Jesus suffering as an example of how this life offers little deliverance and cloaks us in suffering until we enter the kingdom of God, not through death, but through our choices in this life. This revised view is much closer to the Wisdom tradition and tracks with much of the Old Testament.

As Harvey Cox says in “The Future of Faith”, “Creeds are products of their times. They are road markers of key points in Christian history. They provide invaluable indices of how some Christians thought, not all, responding to largely internal disputes in the past. But to make “believing” them a permanent feature of Christianity today misunderstands the valuable functions they can serve. The numerous creeds theologians have devised over the centuries enables us to glimpse the historical challenges they faced.  But their circumstances and ours are not the same. Only be seeing them for what they are, landmarks along the long path Christianity has trod and not walled barriers, can they help us face current difficulties and opportunities.”

I would want to add that this is not a call to abandon ideology or creeds, but rather A CALL FOR PERSPECTIVE AND FOCUS. Our faith needs to focus on, in and of the Christus, the word of God incarnate, the LOGOS of God, the pathway and the key and not on those creeds, ideologies and barriers that may help us define Godness or provide a lens with which to see God more clearly.  We ought to quit worshipping the lens.

The incarnation, Life and Death of Christ offer us more than great insights into God, great deliverance from evil and the bondage of this life. He offers us the MEANS of salvation, the LOGOS of God, the WORD incarnate, the PATH of righteousness through Grace and the KEYS to the Kingdom he spoke most often about.

Jesus Christ is not about atonement for Adam and Eve, he is about atonement for US, we here today, we here who are still lost, still searching, still confused. He says to us, “It is OK. God knew you then and He knows you now. His is waiting for you to accept Him with faith. Your ultimate death is a transition to a kingdom you can embrace today, now, in this life, with a change of heart; with my baptism of faith. It is a kingdom where suffering is endured, where cancer is not an end, where love abounds and where I always stand to greet you at the door.”

Prof. John P. Middleton

2010