I don’t know…I’ve said for years that making atonement a transaction is bad theology. This just takes it to the next level:
(from FAILblog)
Hacking Christianity
Faith | Tech | Geeks
Hacking Christianity
Faith | Tech | Geeks
I don’t know…I’ve said for years that making atonement a transaction is bad theology. This just takes it to the next level:
(from FAILblog)
Just a quick question about something I picked up in your wording:
"I've said for years that making atonement a transaction is bad theology."
Does this mean you believe Christ's death was some form of atonement, just that the 'transactional' element of most theories of atonement is askew? I am kind of wrestling with this at the moment as I believe atonement is the most biblical perspective (though others such as Christus Victor can coexist as valid readings), yet I am uncomfortable with certain elements of it (that I'm unable to articulate presently due to lack of caffeine). You mean there's a way of acknowledging atonement without it being transactional?
I primarily have deep theological issues with making violence a part of a transaction between God and humanity.
The two most commonly accepted and professed atonement theories are transactional.
– Ransom Atonement: Jesus paid the ransom to the Devil for us and as ransomed people we gain eternal life.
– Substitutionary Atonement: Christ died for our sins as a sacrificial lamb, and in his death he redeemed God’s lost honor.
Transactional atonement theologies are problematic in that they glorify suffering and do not critique the violence done to Christ: they celebrate it as necessary.
Two lesser known (but classical) understandings of Atonement are not transactional:
– Exemplary Atonement: Christ's teachings and life are a salvific example for people to follow.
– Incarnational Atonement: Simply because God became human and suffered alongside us and died our death makes humanity at-one with God.
Non-transactional atonement theologies do not glorify suffering but exhibit it as the results of a lifestyle following Christ. The violence done to Christ or Christ's followers is not glorified but rather is critiqued to remove the violence's power.
Thoughts?
Why aren’t they all simultaneously valid?
i really thought this was just humor post. I'm blown away that comments shifted in a very serious tone. but funny and interesting
Thanks Jeremy! Well I definitely have issues with the Christus Exemplar thing as it seems to me that would lead to a 'we can save ourselves by following Jesus' kind of attitude, and appears to be based on an overly optimistic view of human's capability without God's grace (although I would accept it as a valid reading in some sense as long as it was by no means the dominant reading). I dunno, I agree with you about the violence thing being problematic, but it seems to me that real human forgiveness and love operate in exactly the same way – costly suffering when it comes to forgiveness, and some sort of substitution (draining) when it comes to love. So I guess I keep coming back to substitutionary atonement despite my misgivings. But I do definitely feel that it's a heresy to say that's the only reading you can have of the crucifixion and that anyone who believes differently is wrong.
Bad, but incredibly popular theology.
I'd be really interested in seeing what the commenters at FAILblog had to say.
You all need to remember that guilt relative to sin still remains as the outstanding issue AFTER Jesus' crucifixion which must be resolved. Jn. 16:8. Therefore it is a stretch that he has died in your place.