I think the author does a good job interpreting the “ransom” theory in its best possible light - something like the debt is paid to death. Hope it helps!
Thanks for writing this. I feel like the traditional atonement beliefs are very illogical and against the bible, I'm glad to see other people thinking along the same lines. I think you're on the right track.
thanks, nathan ... i agree ... illogical and against the bible ... not a healthy combination! question: what was a turning point for you to be open to thinking differently about atonement stuff?
I was always taught along the lines of at-one-ment and seeing Jesus as the example for us to follow, so I've always seen the traditional "sacrifice to appease God's wrath" theology as bad and leading to all sorts of problems. But it was a surprise to find out how in the minority I was!
Hi Jonathan - I welcome your view on at-one-ment and the uncontrolling love of God. Thank you. A phrase that I often find applied to myself is "We can be right in that which we affirm and wrong in that which we deny". I think it would be fair to say that it would not be proof texting if I should say that the substitutionary work of the Cross is a major theme of Paul in both Romans and Galatians especially.
In my writings (and I am not very good at it) I am trying to explore the freedom that Christ brings through his death. I have read Paul Tournier's "Guilt and Grace" and have started reading Luther's Commentary on Galatians and recognise that guilt and shame are the primary inhibitors to human development. I take it that God can just forgive and that forgiveness is what issued from the Cross when Jesus cried "Forgive them ..." and believe that this love is uncontrolling, non coercive and life transforming.
Also, however, I believe something *did* happen at the Cross whereby all legal requirements that we place upon a controlling Deity are removed and through Christ we stand complete in the unconditional love of God. The Law is not only the reason sin exists ("Without the law there would be no sin" Romans 7), but also through the law "comes the knowledge of sin",. Furthermore "The actual power of sin is in the law". Paul's psychology and reasoning are most liberating when he said through the death of Christ we with Him are DEAD to the law - Dead means dead - unresponsive and disconnected and free to live in the wide place of Love.
I have considered that the language Paul uses may just be appropriate to the Jewish sacrificial milieu of the time and used as a metaphor for the liberation experienced for the Christian ... or it could be literal. Whatever, there is contained within Paul's writings concerning the believers' freedom from the law, couched in terms we may find inappropriate, what can only be explained as containing a "joy unspeakable and full of glory"!
To abandon that would be to rob people who, struggling with guilt and shame are desperately trying to impress others, their conscience, and their idea of God, of a freedom which is theirs with no strings attached.
I have tried to articulate this in my latest post:
Thank you for your comment. I read your post. Your style of writing is nice. Keep it up.
And I like the content of where you are going. (Not that it matters what I “like,” just that I resonate with some or maybe much of what you are saying.) Isn’t it interesting that when something of great truth happens, it can be viewed and talked about from a handful of different perspectives? This is what I was trying to say when I mentioned, “What takes place at the cross is a non-linear prism of truth.” As I was reading, it felt like interesting prismatic stuff was happening.
And yes, I agree, it would be fair to point out that substitutionary thinking cannot just be thrown out … and at the same time, as we leave it in, questions should be forming around the concept, namely, for most of americanized christianity, “Who was the substitution for … and for what purpose?” If God needed a substitute to pour his wrath upon as the typical PSA, Ransom, or Satisfaction theories propose, then, well, I’ve already said as much, but “No thank you.”
However, if we were the ones who needed a substitute … something to subvert the scapegoating mechanism called religion that we created … someone who, because of their innocence, was able to slip past the carefully crafted systems of shame, guilt, and non-reflexive sacrifice, then I would say “Yes.”
And in that vein, to borrow from Richard Rhor, “The death of Jesus didn’t change God’s mind about us, but changed our mind about God.” All of this is in alignment with what I heard you saying about our problem of guilt and shame. From a Girardian point of view, guilt, and shame can be seen as the fuel that drives the scapegoating engine.
And yes to your sentence, “I have considered that the language Paul uses may just be appropriate to the Jewish sacrificial milieu of the time,” (and I would also add to the Roman sacrificial milieu.)
Have you read James Alison? I thought of him while I was reading your comment. Check out, among other things, “Undergoing God: Dispatches from a Scene of a Break-In.” I suspect that what he’s saying harmonizes with what you are saying and, at times, might give an even more interesting (prismatic) look to all of this.
I’m still considering your 3rd paragraph … about what *did* happen at the cross. You might be right. I’m unsure of how to process this at this moment.
Thanks for the reply and the encouragement! The Richard Rhor statement is key to the whole relevance of how we understand what happened at the Cross - does it change God or our view of God? Obviously from a process view the former is possible but not to the extent that God could be in the first place a God who "needed a substitute to pour his wrath upon". That would be inconceivable.
There is definitely a replacement from the distant (relatively) impersonal legalistic deity to the revelation of Jesus Christ and that of a gracious loving Father which, I agree, must be something that takes place within us.
Equally with the law. Was it God's law that was satisfied literally, externally or was Paul using the whole metaphor to guide us from our own "fleshly" view of God to one that is born by the Spirit (Romans 8:1-3)? The question is only as important as we feel the need to subject ourselves to a type of rationalism that demands such answers. All I know is that God has set me free to love and be loved unconditionally where legal control (in Luther's terms) need not and does not exist. This I know from within my heart!
(I'm in the process of checking out James Alison - Thanks 👍)
Excellent article. Your atonement theory is very much on line with salvation as theosis - the actualization of the inherent, unconditional love that we are, the living out of our at-one-ment.
Great question (and I've had others ask the same thing this week) ... for me, again, I don't really think of it as a model of atonement. Ha, despite the fact that I just wrote 3500 words about it, "atonement" isn't in my vernacular; however, at-one-ment is!
Once I decided that at-one-ment was the reality, then the story of the resurrection did at least two things ...
1-It allows me to read the thing in a truthful way that incorporates revelation, mythic, faith, factual kind of way. (As I wrote about in the end of the post). Is the idea of resurrection factual? Well, look at the butterfly! Different organism (although very much attached to the previous caterpillar organism), and a whole new way of interacting in the world that could've only been dreamed about by the caterpillar (supposing that caterpillars dream). Look at the entire season we call spring. Something new is happening, though it's attached to winter. It's true on a variety of levels.
I imagine the Jesus resurrection could be the same. Did it factually happen? Idk for sure. I hope so. The followers went to their death claiming it. The tomb was empty. All those things are good indicators, but either way, wow, what a great mythic/faith/revelation story to orient my life around.
2-It allows me to see the commitment of Jesus being at one with everything. He was so at one … that when he re-appeared he didn't stoop to violence, vengeance, retaliation, but elevated himself (and us) to grace, forgiveness, and a whole new way of living. He becomes the archetypal contagion of generative mimesis. (To borrow some Girardian language).
Forgiveness over against grudges, grace over stinginess, abundance over scarcity, etc.… is generative mimesis and the thing I'm trying to imitate (though I'm not great at it.)
Great writing and ideas, Jonathan! I always find atonement ideas fun to read and think about.
I would offer one more atonement theory. God decided to create, perhaps ages ago, perhaps an eternity ago. Assuming God is really, really intelligent, not to mention prescient, God would have known when deciding to create that, at least during some long periods of what would result, that many beings would be caught up in unavoidable and horrific suffering. (God would also have known that much joy would result, and hopefully that there would be long, perhaps eternal periods, in which joy and communion vastly outweighs sorrow and suffering). So even if God never directly causes suffering to any of these beings, God's decision to create has nonetheless resulted, and will further result, in ungodly levels of suffering for many beings. God regrets this of course, and God's fierce dedication to fairness and justice means that, for God to feel right about having decided to create, not only must God share in the suffering, but God must pay for the suffering, atone for it. Of course, God's vast intelligence, sensitivity, and perceptiveness means that God knows and shares in the suffering of every being in every moment, but God also needs to *show* us that God participates in the the suffering and wants to pay for it. So God comes among us and pays the price in our sight, and we come to know that God shares suffering with us. We are not alone, abandoned in our suffering. This is one thing God did when Jesus of Nazareth let God in all the way and shared the fullness of his life with God, holding nothing back. And this is what God does again and again throughout the vast course of cosmic history. And what God does within each of us whether we know God is there or not.
I appreciate how you help us hear the truly Good News of Jesus.
A lovely essay on more ancient ways of understanding atonement:
http://www.newhumanityinstitute.org/pdf-articles/Ben_Myers-The_Patristic_Atonement_Model.pdf
I think the author does a good job interpreting the “ransom” theory in its best possible light - something like the debt is paid to death. Hope it helps!
Great. Thnx!
Thanks for writing this. I feel like the traditional atonement beliefs are very illogical and against the bible, I'm glad to see other people thinking along the same lines. I think you're on the right track.
thanks, nathan ... i agree ... illogical and against the bible ... not a healthy combination! question: what was a turning point for you to be open to thinking differently about atonement stuff?
I was always taught along the lines of at-one-ment and seeing Jesus as the example for us to follow, so I've always seen the traditional "sacrifice to appease God's wrath" theology as bad and leading to all sorts of problems. But it was a surprise to find out how in the minority I was!
Hi Jonathan - I welcome your view on at-one-ment and the uncontrolling love of God. Thank you. A phrase that I often find applied to myself is "We can be right in that which we affirm and wrong in that which we deny". I think it would be fair to say that it would not be proof texting if I should say that the substitutionary work of the Cross is a major theme of Paul in both Romans and Galatians especially.
In my writings (and I am not very good at it) I am trying to explore the freedom that Christ brings through his death. I have read Paul Tournier's "Guilt and Grace" and have started reading Luther's Commentary on Galatians and recognise that guilt and shame are the primary inhibitors to human development. I take it that God can just forgive and that forgiveness is what issued from the Cross when Jesus cried "Forgive them ..." and believe that this love is uncontrolling, non coercive and life transforming.
Also, however, I believe something *did* happen at the Cross whereby all legal requirements that we place upon a controlling Deity are removed and through Christ we stand complete in the unconditional love of God. The Law is not only the reason sin exists ("Without the law there would be no sin" Romans 7), but also through the law "comes the knowledge of sin",. Furthermore "The actual power of sin is in the law". Paul's psychology and reasoning are most liberating when he said through the death of Christ we with Him are DEAD to the law - Dead means dead - unresponsive and disconnected and free to live in the wide place of Love.
I have considered that the language Paul uses may just be appropriate to the Jewish sacrificial milieu of the time and used as a metaphor for the liberation experienced for the Christian ... or it could be literal. Whatever, there is contained within Paul's writings concerning the believers' freedom from the law, couched in terms we may find inappropriate, what can only be explained as containing a "joy unspeakable and full of glory"!
To abandon that would be to rob people who, struggling with guilt and shame are desperately trying to impress others, their conscience, and their idea of God, of a freedom which is theirs with no strings attached.
I have tried to articulate this in my latest post:
https://bar00.substack.com/p/bows-and-arrows?r=tcg4u
Thanks again for your thoughts 👍
Thank you for your comment. I read your post. Your style of writing is nice. Keep it up.
And I like the content of where you are going. (Not that it matters what I “like,” just that I resonate with some or maybe much of what you are saying.) Isn’t it interesting that when something of great truth happens, it can be viewed and talked about from a handful of different perspectives? This is what I was trying to say when I mentioned, “What takes place at the cross is a non-linear prism of truth.” As I was reading, it felt like interesting prismatic stuff was happening.
And yes, I agree, it would be fair to point out that substitutionary thinking cannot just be thrown out … and at the same time, as we leave it in, questions should be forming around the concept, namely, for most of americanized christianity, “Who was the substitution for … and for what purpose?” If God needed a substitute to pour his wrath upon as the typical PSA, Ransom, or Satisfaction theories propose, then, well, I’ve already said as much, but “No thank you.”
However, if we were the ones who needed a substitute … something to subvert the scapegoating mechanism called religion that we created … someone who, because of their innocence, was able to slip past the carefully crafted systems of shame, guilt, and non-reflexive sacrifice, then I would say “Yes.”
And in that vein, to borrow from Richard Rhor, “The death of Jesus didn’t change God’s mind about us, but changed our mind about God.” All of this is in alignment with what I heard you saying about our problem of guilt and shame. From a Girardian point of view, guilt, and shame can be seen as the fuel that drives the scapegoating engine.
And yes to your sentence, “I have considered that the language Paul uses may just be appropriate to the Jewish sacrificial milieu of the time,” (and I would also add to the Roman sacrificial milieu.)
Have you read James Alison? I thought of him while I was reading your comment. Check out, among other things, “Undergoing God: Dispatches from a Scene of a Break-In.” I suspect that what he’s saying harmonizes with what you are saying and, at times, might give an even more interesting (prismatic) look to all of this.
I’m still considering your 3rd paragraph … about what *did* happen at the cross. You might be right. I’m unsure of how to process this at this moment.
Thanks again for your “prismatic thoughts.”
All my best
Thanks for the reply and the encouragement! The Richard Rhor statement is key to the whole relevance of how we understand what happened at the Cross - does it change God or our view of God? Obviously from a process view the former is possible but not to the extent that God could be in the first place a God who "needed a substitute to pour his wrath upon". That would be inconceivable.
There is definitely a replacement from the distant (relatively) impersonal legalistic deity to the revelation of Jesus Christ and that of a gracious loving Father which, I agree, must be something that takes place within us.
Equally with the law. Was it God's law that was satisfied literally, externally or was Paul using the whole metaphor to guide us from our own "fleshly" view of God to one that is born by the Spirit (Romans 8:1-3)? The question is only as important as we feel the need to subject ourselves to a type of rationalism that demands such answers. All I know is that God has set me free to love and be loved unconditionally where legal control (in Luther's terms) need not and does not exist. This I know from within my heart!
(I'm in the process of checking out James Alison - Thanks 👍)
“The question is only as important as we feel the need to subject ourselves to a type of rationalism that demands such answers” 👍🏼
Excellent article. Your atonement theory is very much on line with salvation as theosis - the actualization of the inherent, unconditional love that we are, the living out of our at-one-ment.
Love it
How does the resurrection of Jesus and of all fit within your model of atonement? Have your views on that changed at all?
Great question (and I've had others ask the same thing this week) ... for me, again, I don't really think of it as a model of atonement. Ha, despite the fact that I just wrote 3500 words about it, "atonement" isn't in my vernacular; however, at-one-ment is!
Once I decided that at-one-ment was the reality, then the story of the resurrection did at least two things ...
1-It allows me to read the thing in a truthful way that incorporates revelation, mythic, faith, factual kind of way. (As I wrote about in the end of the post). Is the idea of resurrection factual? Well, look at the butterfly! Different organism (although very much attached to the previous caterpillar organism), and a whole new way of interacting in the world that could've only been dreamed about by the caterpillar (supposing that caterpillars dream). Look at the entire season we call spring. Something new is happening, though it's attached to winter. It's true on a variety of levels.
I imagine the Jesus resurrection could be the same. Did it factually happen? Idk for sure. I hope so. The followers went to their death claiming it. The tomb was empty. All those things are good indicators, but either way, wow, what a great mythic/faith/revelation story to orient my life around.
2-It allows me to see the commitment of Jesus being at one with everything. He was so at one … that when he re-appeared he didn't stoop to violence, vengeance, retaliation, but elevated himself (and us) to grace, forgiveness, and a whole new way of living. He becomes the archetypal contagion of generative mimesis. (To borrow some Girardian language).
Forgiveness over against grudges, grace over stinginess, abundance over scarcity, etc.… is generative mimesis and the thing I'm trying to imitate (though I'm not great at it.)
Great cartoons, too! Some of your best.
Great writing and ideas, Jonathan! I always find atonement ideas fun to read and think about.
I would offer one more atonement theory. God decided to create, perhaps ages ago, perhaps an eternity ago. Assuming God is really, really intelligent, not to mention prescient, God would have known when deciding to create that, at least during some long periods of what would result, that many beings would be caught up in unavoidable and horrific suffering. (God would also have known that much joy would result, and hopefully that there would be long, perhaps eternal periods, in which joy and communion vastly outweighs sorrow and suffering). So even if God never directly causes suffering to any of these beings, God's decision to create has nonetheless resulted, and will further result, in ungodly levels of suffering for many beings. God regrets this of course, and God's fierce dedication to fairness and justice means that, for God to feel right about having decided to create, not only must God share in the suffering, but God must pay for the suffering, atone for it. Of course, God's vast intelligence, sensitivity, and perceptiveness means that God knows and shares in the suffering of every being in every moment, but God also needs to *show* us that God participates in the the suffering and wants to pay for it. So God comes among us and pays the price in our sight, and we come to know that God shares suffering with us. We are not alone, abandoned in our suffering. This is one thing God did when Jesus of Nazareth let God in all the way and shared the fullness of his life with God, holding nothing back. And this is what God does again and again throughout the vast course of cosmic history. And what God does within each of us whether we know God is there or not.
I like it… I especially like the “fierce dedication to fairness and justice” part. i’m banking on that! Thanks, Tim.