Hold On, Wait Atonement!

Over the last few days, I have been researching atonement theories (i.e., the doctrine of what Christ did for us on the cross) for a lecture I will be giving in the fall. Sad to say, but I realized during my study how limited my knowledge of the various atonement theories is. I understand the basic differences between the approaches in Western Christianity and Eastern Christianity, but, over the last few days, I have been enlightened as to the subtle differences between atonement theories in the Western tradition (i.e., the tradition in which 90-some-percent of us in the U.S. lie).



Of the various theories, the one with which I was most familiar is the Penalty Satisfaction theory, championed by the Reformers. This theory basically says that Christ paid the penalty of sin due to God instead of us humans doing so. This gift of Christ then sets us free from owing anything to God for appeasing God's wrath. This theory is built upon prior theories by Anselm and Thomas Aquinas in terms of Christ fulfilling some kind of "satisfaction" to God that we could not fulfill, but focused more on how this justifies and saves individuals.

Another theory of which I had heard, but was largely unfamiliar was the Moral Influence theory, attributed to Peter Abelard. Abelard was troubled by Anselm's assumptions that God needed to be satisfied, so he claimed that the cross was an instrument to calm our fears about God, to know God's love, and to respond to others.

Similarly, I was somewhat familiar with the Ransom theory, but largely unlearned as to its nuances. Essentailly, this theory details how Christ on the cross dies, goes to Hell, tricks Satan, and frees humankind from the power of sin in the resurrection.

Although there are several other theories in Western Christianity, I note these because of their particular influence upon John Wesley, our Methodist theological godfather. Wesley certainly stood squarely within his 18th century Protestant context in explaining the abstract componenets of the atonement, but he also wanted to explain how it effects us today in the church and as a response to God's grace. As Wesley scholar Randy Maddox states in the greatest book about Wesleyan theology ever written, all three of these theories had a profound influence upon Wesley: "One is tempted to describe [Wesley's approach to atonement] as a Penalty Satisfaction explanation of the Atonement which has a Moral Influence purpose, and a Ransom effect." (109)

That said, I have two serious problems with Western explanations of the atonement. First, almost all of them seem to overlook both the incarnation and the resurrection. Western theologians have certainly emphasized Christ's two natures, but they have mostly done so in order to see Christ as a divine substitute for humanity and not as the God who sympathizes with our human condition. And the primary highlight of what God does with that humanity is not just to kill it and then all of a sudden, something magic happens to people who "believe". Instead, God resurrects that human nature, thus redeeming it. In essence, my beef here is that we have focused so much on Christ's death as an end in itself, not as a means to its overcoming for the benefit of all humanity.

The second point is this one I found during my study by the theologian Robert Jenson. Jenson reminds us that God does not need satisfaction from the human side. God does not try to be reconciled to us. God is not a long-lost parent who tries to rekindle a relationship with estranged children. Instead, God has been there all along. What Christ did on the cross was pure grace- in other words, free gift. We can take it or leave it. It was an attempt to reconcile us to Godself- to show us lost children the way back. It is us humans who then are able to participate in the divine life thanks to the God who also took on and knows quite painfully our human nature. (see William C. Placher, Essentials of Christian Theology, 191-205)

If that doesn't resonate with you or if it doesn't make sense, let me simply leave you with Paul's words from Romans 6. I think he says it much better than I:

"What then are we to say? Should we continue in sin in order that grace may abound? By no means! How can he who died to sin go on living in it? Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? Therefore we have been buried with him by baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in the newness of life. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his."