Peeps and a simple-minded attachment to atonement theory

I'm sitting in my office on this Easter Monday morning a stack of ungraded journals by my side.  We spent Saturday and Sunday with my father up in Santa Barbara, marking both his 70th and the resurrection of our Lord.  In honor of these two important events, I ate far more than was necessary, and I have that vaguely queasy feeling in my tummy this morning.

It's not Easter without an egg hunt, and my beloved and I hid three dozen plastic eggs around my father's garden yesterday morning.  The rest of the family hunted with varying degrees of enthusiasm, with relatively few complaints from the shorter folk about my nasty propensity to wedge the goodies high up in trees.  Once all 36 eggs had been found, our group shared the bounty together.  It was discovered that few save your reporter were fond of marshmallow peeps.  Thus I ate far more than my share, and this might explain my shakiness this morning.

I am also proud to report that, egged on by my sister, a number of us (including my father), braved the frigid waters of the Pacific off Henry's Beach yesterday afternoon.   I felt very proud.

I did enjoy the long Good Friday service at All Saints.  Three hours is a bit long to sit in church, I realize, but I was struck by how many people were only able to attend for a portion of the liturgy.  I'm hoping that they all had work or family commitments that kept them from sitting vigil for three hours; I wouldn't like to think that most of my fellow Episcopalians just don't have the endurance to remain focused for that long. 

I think it's hard for progressive Christians to focus on Good Friday.   The desire to rush ahead to Easter morning is overwhelming.  This seemed especially true for our rector, my friend Ed Bacon, during his brief homily on Friday afternoon.  Let me say for the record that I do love Ed.  He's one of the reasons I came to All Saints, and I do think he often preaches prophetically (I know, an overused adverb among liberal Christians, but hey, it's accurate).  Still, I'm sorry that he chose the course he did in his short sermon.  He began with an attack on traditional Christian atonement theory and last year's Mel Gibson movie, saying that he had found the Passion of the Christ to be, and I quote very much in context, "disgusting."  Ed wasn't just angry at the violence of the film (which I found a bit overwhelming myself) but the theology behind it.  Like most contemporary liberal Christians, Ed finds the idea that Jesus died to "pay for our sins" to be offensive, and he let us know that in the strongest possible terms. Even more unfortunately, my friend Ed then connected atonement theory to the rising power of what he called the "far right-wing theocracy", offering the recently piece of Terri Schiavo legislation as evidence.  (If you're having trouble following that, trust me, so was I in the pew.)

Sometimes it's very hard to be a theologically conservative evangelical with a left-wing world view.  As I listened to Ed last week, I squirmed uncomfortably.  When I first became a Christian, the defining feature of my spiritual experience was the stunning, overwhelming awareness that Jesus had died for me.   One of my cousins, who is very religiously conservative, told me, just before I accepted Christ,  that she had been praying for me daily for more than a decade.  She told me "Hugo, when Jesus was dying on the cross, He was thinking about you."  The first time she told me that, I excused myself from a family party, went into the bathroom, and burst into tears. 

My belief in the atonement was reinforced through prayer and simple experiences. I knew how to poke holes in atonement theory.  Heck, I had to slog through St Anselm's Cur Deus Homo in Latin when I was in grad school, and wrote a typically snide paper about the influence of feudal law on theology.  I can spout all the feminist critiques of the theory as well, about the problems of "blood sacrifice theology" and the "sacramentalization of violence."   Been there, read that, said that.  But I've got to say, in my heart, I'm a very, very childlike guy.  To put it bluntly, my own theology owes more to the likes of Jennifer Knapp and Lee Strobel than it does to a Niebuhr, a Yoder, or a Duns Scotus!   I may have Ph.D. after my name, but my faith is, I admit with a wince, remarkably anti-intellectual. 

I first came to love Jesus because He died for me, not because some progressive preacher told me that he "successfully embodied a radical new ethic of inclusiveness and community"!.   The notion that Jesus was just a man who lived a remarkable life of peace-making and justice, a wonderful role model and no more -- that's not a faith that changes lives. It sure as heck wouldn't have changed mine. 

I'm aware that this "Jesus died for me" theology is, when unaccompanied by the call to action,  self-centered to the point of narcissism.   And yet without it,  I know that I don't have the power to do whatever small good things I am able to do.  Whatever small amount of good work I am able to do with my students and with my youth group stems from the absolute certainty that Jesus shed His blood for me, as He shed His blood for countless others.  Despite the violence of Mel Gibson's movie, I loved it because it made me newly, viscerally aware of the suffering Christ endured for me.  I did cry, quite a bit, and I walked out of that theater feeling humbled and loved and extraordinarily grateful.    The pope may or may not have said "It is as it was" in response to seeing the film -- but for me, when I saw it, it was all that I had imagined and more.  It added powerfully to my Easter experience last year, and will continue to do so for years to come.  But it didn't contradict my commitment to the idea that Jesus wants us to do justice in this life!  And I see no reason why the theology of the atonement ought to be associated with conservative positions on a whole host of economic and social issues.

One of the reasons I like this blog is because I can put into writing what I am unable to defend intellectually.  I'm not interested in offering up an apologetic treatise on the atonement theory. I'm simply sharing how vitally important it is to me, and how painful it is to have this central facet of my simple faith attacked in the church that I love.   

By the way, if you're willing to pay a small fee, the best defense of the atonement theory against its critics comes from another man I am proud to call a friend, Fuller Seminary President Richard Mouw.  Mouw, incidentally, was once a former student of my father's at the University of Alberta...

I must get to some grading.

Comments

[Lee]

Great post, Hugo. I believe it was Augustine who said that Christ must first be received as a gift before he can followed as an example. I think getting rid of the Atonement tends to turn Christianity into just another shrill moralism, since it then becomes a matter of identifying and denouncing the bad guys (like, say, those evil right-wing theocrats who want to prevent Terri S. from being starved to death) in the name of the "peace 'n' justice" Jesus. However, I think it's precisely through the blood of the Cross that we can be reconciled with our enemies.

[Stephen]

Hugo:

As you know, I am a firm believer in allowing others to work out their salvation -- I've enough fear and trembling on my own. A quick read of the gospels suggests that those who were most convinced they were "in" were, in fact, quite far from the Truth. That'll keep you humble. With that long caveat, at what point does the teaching at All Saints fall outside credal orthodoxy? I have heard the following disocunted at All Saints:

Virgin Birth
Resurrection
Divinity of Christ
Atonement (or need thereof)

All Saints does great things and challenges my evangelical complacency. But, in denying many of the central doctrines of the Christian faith it's fair to ask, in what sense are they a "church."

Steve

[cmc]

I think that you have hit on precisely the reason that my own denomination (the Unitarian Universalits who are about as religiously liberal as they come) will never have broad popularity. Religious liberals in general and Unitarians in particular tend to be extremely cerebral in their approach to religious questions; that intellectualism for most people comes at the expense of the more emotional/powerful/mystical engagement with one's faith, which many view as the very essence of religious belief.

Although the cerebral approach works for me personally, I do not think that there is any need to apologize for a faith that engages you on a level beyond mere intellect.

[Caitriona]

From

An interesting paper. It presents much to contemplate.

The biggest difficult I've found, other than trying to put into words the things I believe while discussing my faith with my husband for the 3 years before his profession of faith, is to explore my own feelings on this and other faith issues, and to delineate what is Biblically accurate and what is post-Constantinian.

Oh, and for anyone who doesn't realize it, "God helps those who help themselves is NOT Biblical." Unless, of course, Poor Richard's is a newer testament.

[Caitriona]

YIKES!! > Did that close the tag? and I also forgot to include the URL. That's what I get for thinking theology, trying to discuss things, talking to the kids, and working on the exchange program, all at once. lol

Let's see if the URL works this time. Anabaptist Theology of Atonement

[Ralph Luker]

Hugo, I'm inclined to agree with you that hearing liberal critiques of conservative theology from the pulpit, however sound they may be intellectually, is something less than hearing the proclamation of the gospel.

[Emily]

It strikes me that one needn't abandon atonement theory altogether to have a view of the atonement that's more nuanced and progressive than what's usually put forth as atonement theory.

If progressives tend to want to abandon the atonement altogether or metaphorize it until a lot of its significance disappears, I think it's because conservatives sometimes represent the atonement in the severest of terms (sorry for the weasel words; I'm trying terribly hard not to generalize). The theology that says that every sin is greater pain to Jesus on the cross is--well, I don't know if it's true, but it's so profoundly depressing that I find it impossible to accept. Likewise the idea that God is really, really mad at us, and is only constrained from holding back his anger because his son sacrificed himself. It's creepy.

And yet I have no problem saying that Jesus died for my sins--because I've become able to disconnect that from some of the more depressing potential implications.

[Ono]

Actually, your anti-intellectual faith may have more in common with Scotus that you realize. Scotus always remained a British Isle Marian devotee and unlike Aquinas, he's expositions were about fitting his intellectualism into his faith frame and not the other way around.

It is always interesting to see these atonement discussions because they hardly happen among Catholics. A central part of the Catholics mass is "Behold the lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world." I suspect the difference between atonement and non-atonement Protestants lies in one's priority between scripture/faith and philosophy. The mindset of the latter, I think, breeds a non or anti-atonement theology.

[john alan turner]

Hugo,
Thanks so much for being honest -- both about how much you ate and how difficult it is to hold your beliefs (especially when they're both a little embarrassing because you feel like you should know better!).

[John Sloas]

Such an interesting and fun mix you are. Blessings.

[Hugo]

Thanks, everyone!

[Erica]

I keep running into a problem on blogs I would otherwise adore: obliteration of the sin concept. I think those of us who cannot properly locate evil, or don't want to, often fail to likewise see the need for atonement...just something I am pondering.

[graham]

Wow, I finally disagree with you on a post, Hugo! :-)

[Hugo]

You mean you don't like marshmallow peeps, Graham? ;-)

[Marie]

Hugo,
I would have gladly attended the Good Friday service at All Saint's._ Unfortunately, by the time I looked up the time, the event was almost ending. __If I had checked your site earlier in the day I would have been able to make it.

[Marie]

Hugo,
So glad to hear that there are other adults who are young at heart and still enjoy Easter Egg Hunts. Sounds like you had a great time! ...

[Camassia]

One of the first serious discussions I had on my blog, back before your blog even existed, was on this question. I had heard only the penal-substitution theory of the atonement, and found it horrible and appalling. I'll probably always be Eastern Orthodox on this question, but I've come to understand and respect why substitutionary atonement is meaningful to people. It's not all about needing a bloodthirsty God who demands a sacrifice.

Whatever your theory of the atonement, though, I have started questioning lately this assumption that personal = childish. In the modern era we move from the personal world of family and schoolyard to the adult world of strangers and systems, so I guess it's understandable why people think that it's more sophisticated to see the mission of Jesus as an abstract idea like "structural justice." But, partly under the influence of the book I've been blogging, I've been thinking maybe it just seems that way because of our depersonalized society. The idea that God is a person -- or rather three persons, but anyway not an ineffable force like the Tao or the Atman -- is core concept of Christianity, I think. Otherwise, the idea that Jesus could be fully divine and fully human becomes incomprehensible (which may be why some way-liberal Christians reject that too).

[Hugo]

That's comforting and gratifying, Camassia -- I'm so used to being told my theology is myopic and self-absorbed that I forget that there might be more to the story.

[mythago]

Hugo, I think there is a difference between "Jesus died for me" and "Jesus died for me."

[Hugo]

Indeed. And where those two views are concerned, mine is a vigorous "both/and" theology.

[Caitriona]

Hugo,

Atonement theory is a very difficult topic for most anyone. I grew up knowing that Jesus died for me, both views. Then there was the, "But if we're Christians, meaning followers of Christ, why aren't we living like He lived? Why aren't we doing things like he did?" (I spent a lot of time reading Bible stories to my younger sister when I was little.)

As I've gotten older and seen more of what the world's like, why Jesus did what he did is starting to make more "sense," in a way. There are very few things I wouldn't do for my family, especially my children. How much more would that feeling be coming from the Source of all love.

I don't think God required Jesus to die because He's a vengeful God. I think that PEOPLE needed it, needed a way to see that amends had been made. You know how it is when you screw up on something someone trusted you to do, and you have a hard time going to them to tell them about it and have a hard time looking them in the eye? How much more so when we screw up the way we do every day and know that we've done something God wouldn't approve of?

Jesus loves us so much that He did what was needed for US to drop the barriers we were building between ourselves and God. It is so that WE can feel that the slate is clean, so we can move back into close relationship with God, where we are supposed to be. So we can stop feeling guilty and less than, so that we can allow God's love to flow over and through us once again.

Does that make sense to anyone other than me?

My husband recommends J. Denney Weaver's book, The Non-Violent Atonement.

[Hugo]

I have read Weaver, and like it very much -- very good for those who like the Anabaptist, middle-way approach on things.

[rudy]

whatta post!

[Swan]

"All Saints does great things and challenges my evangelical complacency. But, in denying many of the central doctrines of the Christian faith it's fair to ask, in what sense are they a "church.""

I'd say that if they deny all these central Christian doctrines, they are not a Christian church at all.

Following that, my question to Hugo is: Why do you stay with this "church" instead of going to a church with true Christian teaching AND where great things are done?
Do you think God will bring change to All Saints back to true Christianity through you?

[J.J.B]

Hugo,
Just came home from dropping my college student off at school.__On the way we had an interesting conversation on theology. My daughter is reading Unanumo, and wants to know why her philosophy professor has assigned Unanumo instead of Aristotle. I wish I could have helped, but I've never read any of his works. I know that his philosophy is centered on theology. Are you familiar with his ideas?