I posted this several years ago, but thought I’d bring it up again since the emerging church conversation has heated up in recent months.
From Brian McLaren’s The Story We Find Ourselves In, paraphrased unless in quotes:
- Substitutionary Atonement - God’s wrath, directed at us because of our sin, could only be satisfied by the death of Jesus (who replaced the OT sacrifices with his perfect self-sacrifice).
- Ransom - because of our sin, we belong to Satan, and God buys us back with the death of Jesus, then turns the tables on Satan with the Resurrection.
- Christus Victor - we are dead in our sins, destined for the grave, but Jesus’ death and resurrection triumphed over death itself, enabling us to be made alive with Christ.
- Perfect Penitent - we are all in need of repentence (God will forgive us out of the goodness of his heart if we do), but we can’t really repent perfectly - we always hold back, we always fall into sin again. Jesus is the perfect penitent (or “repenter”) in our place, and so secures our forgiveness (CS Lewis’ favorite theory, according to McLaren).
- Moral Influence - Jesus’ self-giving love, expressed in his death on the cross, leads us to love God and love others fully, giving our lives back to God.
- Powerful Weakness - by becoming vulnerable and submitting to death on the cross, Jesus shows us God’s love for us, as well as the nature of His Kingdom (sacrifice, not violent victory).
- Embodied Betrayal - our sin is a betrayal of God, and he showed us that in the only way adequate - through his physical torture and death at our hands.
Which of these contain elements of truth? Which rely on misconceptions? Are all of them partly right? Which has the most potential for helping us understand the Christ-event today? Which have been adopted or at least acknowledged by specific theological traditions?
| permalink |
[...] False dichotomy. There are at least 7 theories of atonement, and I’m sure Driscoll has used the other six as sermon illustrations even if he’s never thought of them as distinct theories. Very few people hold to exactly one and no others. 7. Hell. The issue is whether or not anyone will experience conscious eternal torment, or if unbelievers will simply cease to exist (annihilationism) or eventually be saved and taken to heaven (universalism). [...]
You really reckon anyone is going to bite on that one!!!?
Talk about hot potatoes…
I can’t say which of these is true, although all would seem to have some basis in scripture or church history to some degree. What I can say is that models of atonement which rely on any aspect of changing God’s mind or deflecting his wrath or paying some penalty hold no sway with me. The idea that God needs soothing or that his mind needs to be changed about my goodness seems absurd. That tosses models 1-4 at least for me. Models 5-7 all emphasize that the person who needs changing is ME, not God. And they emphasize that the change that needs to happen is a dying to my selfishness and the pain it (selfishness) creates in society. This form of “atonement”–fostering inner change by the compelling example of God–is most appealing to me and seems most in consonance with my evolutionary understanding of our biogenesis.
I guess Hamo was right…
I’d have to go with #3. It’s the only ne that centers on the resurrection of Christ.
Joel-
I too lean toward number 3, but I think there is some sense in which it sets up death as a force more powerful than God, at least initially. If Jesus had to die and rise to defeat death, it must be because of some type of system external to and over God that required it.
I don’t think I can fully accept any theory that limits God’s power.
I guess I could also see #3 (Christus Victor) as communicating Christ’s pre-existing victory and power over death, rather than his death and resurrection being the actual moment of triumph. In other words, God revealed but did not accomplish this victory in the death and resurrection of Christ, since by his very nature God has always had ultimate power over death.
For that reason, I most strongly identify with #4-7, and see #1-2 as illustrations that made sense to particular people at particular times and places. In addition, I think #1 and #2 help us appreciate the magnitude of Jesus’ sacrifice, so we don’t reduce it to a cheap attention-getting tactic on God’s part.
There is at least one more angle to consider: covenant. Jesus himself talks about the new covenant in Christ’s blood (see his explanation of the eucharist in Luke 22:20). Hebrews also makes a passing blood/covenant reference in 12:24.
While as Gentile believers this doesn’t mean as much to us, I think we should at least appreciate the covenantal aspects of Christ’s death and resurrection because of what they communicated to the early (Jewish) Christians.
I have to go with #1 simply because thats what the word of God says so! Romans 3:25 says “God presented him as a sacrificeof atonement through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate His justice..” Earlier in Romans, in chapter 1, it says that the “wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against…all men” So connecting the two verses we see that Jesus was the substitutionary atonement, not a feel good happy example for all men to live by. The wrath of God towards man had to be appeased so that we can fellowship with Him and only a perfect being could make that sacrifice and that the Son, Jesus Christ who knew no sin. I go with #1 all the way. The rest may offer some insight but they are not the basis, the substitutionary atonement is the basis, the rest is just add-ons, without #1, 2-7 are pointless and negated!
Blessings
Thanks very much, have bloglifted your post here http://www.jasonclark.ws/2006/10/23/your-emerging-views-of-jesus-please/#comments
[...] 7 Theories of Atonement » Radical Congruency (tags: atonement christ christian christianity theology) [...]
[...] Radical Congruency post on the theories of the atonement [...]
[...] Yes, you read that right: Emergent is promoting a contest to encourage creative thinking and expression about various theories of atonement. [...]
Besides these theories, there must be a threory of community construction theory. This highlights the way in which the early Christian community constructed the story of the cross and Jesus’ death on it through their own lenses of diverse theological and philosophical views. God lets people to disturb the construction of narratives that led to destruction of people and degradation of religion into a construction of stories around the cross that would enable them to be creative, dynamic, emptying, serving and forward looking communities. In this way it was a performance to disturb the religious and dominant narratives and thus provide a subversive community narratives that will continue to influence, challenge and transform people even without the presence of Jesus.
Such performance has disturbed communities in a way that they began to construct narratives around the cross in diverse ways and to disturb themselves and other in their faithfulness to God and in their love to Jesus.
Theories,theories,theories! but isn’t there only one small narrow gate and isn’t it only found by a few? Just because something is taught to be true I suppose that also makes it true,aye? Maybe there is an eighth theory,but maybe all of the seven above are not true. So then what is the correct answer to this question? There is only one sin that can be repented of to obey the Acts 2:38 command. What is that sin? Narrows things down a bit doesn’t it?