On Atonement: Taking on Anselm
January 31st, 2008 | by Scott |As we looked at last time there were a number of theories that have surfaced throughout the centuries that have sought to explain the nature of Christ’s death.
The commonly held view that Christ died as a punishment for our sins was not fully developed until Anselm in the 11th century. He stated in Curs Deus Homo:
This debt was so great that, that while none but man must solve the debt, none but God was able to do it; so that he who does it must be both God and man.
This would later be expanded during the reformation to make greater use of God’s Wrath. As time has progressed this view has become orthodoxy and any attempts to question it places one in jeopardy of being labeled a heretic. An 11th century interpretation has become normative for the vast majority of the evangelical world.
That is not to say that Penal Substitutionary Atonement doesn’t have its merits. It does. A cursory read of Scripture would lead one to the deeply entrenched belief that the death of Christ was punitive and in order to satisfy God’s wrath for our iniquities.
But a deeper look exposes some major questions with this atonement view. Brad Jersak lists several problems with Penal Substitution over the centuries.
–It pits Father against Son.
–It makes God beholden
–It requires the debt of sin to be paid back
–It says sin must be paid back by punishment
–It paints God as retributive
–It distorts divine justice
–It creates atheists
So the knock against Penal Substitution is the perception that Jesus and God are playing two different roles: Jesus is loving and forgiving, God is punitive and harsh unable to forgive without the price being paid. God is beholden to His wrath and sense of justice.
It also posits that the only possible outcome for sin is punishment. There can be no other form of recompense but the shedding of blood. This creates a dichotomy between the Compassionate God of scripture and the vengeful God. An Old-New Testament divide that has long given honest seekers heartburn. Alongside that is the idea that the teachings of Jesus to turn the other cheek, to forgive 70×7 are not applicable to the process of divine reconciliation.
These questions are not new but have progressed throughout the past millennium and have coalesced into the great debate that is brewing today.
As with all theological positions there must be a critical eye for inconsistencies. As we move forward we will turn that eye onto other theories including my own of nonviolent atonement. These questions are not enough to overturn the notion of penal substitution but they are necessary as we try to understand more fully what took place at the cross.
May we grapple with the nuance of this topic, not dismiss anything out of hand but in full fellowship wrestle with the cross at the same time giving glory to God that the story does not end at the cross. May we proceed with this discussion with mutual respect, courtesy and understanding that we are all children of God seeking His truth. To quote N.T. Wright:
And it would be good, above all, if all participants in debates about the atonement might be able to agree on something which again I haven’t explored here very far but which seems to me crucially important. As I said at the start, when Jesus was going to his own death, he indicated pretty clearly that he saw all the lines of scriptural narrative converging at this point; and, to help his disciples get the full meaning and benefit of what was about to happen, he didn’t give them a theory, he gave them a meal. That meal - which was much more than a Passover meal, but not less - contains in itself not only all the various meanings of ‘atonement’ that are worth considering, but also the means by which theories can be turned into real life. Personal, practical, political life. Kingdom-of-God-on-earth-as-in-heaven life. And that, after all, is what ‘atonement’ ought to be about.
35 Responses to “On Atonement: Taking on Anselm”
By len on Jan 31, 2008 | Reply
One thing I found missing from a very good post is any mention of God’s holiness. Any action of God is bound in His character, which is holy, just, loving, compassionate, merciful, gracious and so many more things.
I found it interesting that Wright references “the meal”. Do we approach this subject as we did nonviolence by looking first at the words of Jesus? If so then I submit these words of Jesus: “For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.” Matthew 26:28, NKJV.
Vine defines the Greek word “aphesis” as meaning a dismissal or release, here translated as remission. That doesn’t mean that a substititionary death by Christ is absolutely necessary, but can lead to that conclusion. I am anxious to know what common ground we have so as to adequately discuss this. Can we at least agree that Jesus is stating that our sin, and subsequent release from sin, is a reason for His death? And that reason is important enough for Him to mention at “the meal”?
Another question: is Paul allowed as a source in this conversation? How about Hebrews? I ask that because there is a school of thought today that seems to me to have dismissed Paul as irrelevant to conversations on atonement.
Looking forward to this. I accept the substitionary death of Jesus, but do believe that stopping there is not doing the cross justice.
By Scott on Jan 31, 2008 | Reply
I agree that “any action of God is bound in His character.” And when there seems to be inconsistency comes the need for us to dig deeper.
When we move to the point in the next couple of posts where we critically engage the text I do want to begin with Jesus because that is the starting point and the filter through which I see all of Scripture. My problem with the traditional penal substitution model is that Jesus never indicates that it is God doing the crucifying. Instead, man is. And that is the interpretation of the early evangelists, Paul and the Hebrew writer.
I believe that Jesus had to die and that His death released us from the bondage of this sinful world. That, to me, is common ground.
But who crucified Him? Us or God?
By Justin on Jan 31, 2008 | Reply
I’m thinking about a sermon in Acts two where Peter explicitly states, “and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death. But God raised him from the dead”
It says something about God’s foreknowledge and plan, but one would think that if this view of substitutionary atonement were correct, Peter might have referenced it. Instead, he said God allowed it to be done by wicked men. Seems noteworty
By scott on Jan 31, 2008 | Reply
I think it is very noteworthy. God’s work is done at the cross but it was not necessarily God who did the crucifixion.
By Shane on Feb 1, 2008 | Reply
As church planters who share many of your atonement instincts, we find singing to be especially hard. It’s not just the old or new hymns and songs that suit up in penal substitutionary garb. And if our hymns and songs influence us half as much as I have heard they do, we’ve got a lot of work to do. It’s hard to undo the cumulative affect of decades of singing hymns with a sermon, an article, or a conversation. Most people cannot even imagine how Christ’s blood can be shed for the remission of sins outside of a penal substitutionary paradigm (which itself is amazing since it took over a thousand years for it to even occur to a rich guy in Milan). It’s a long road, but I am glad you’re going down it.
By Scott on Feb 1, 2008 | Reply
I know what you mean. I look back over sermons I preached several years back and they just drip penal substitution. And the prospect of even beginning to work in a more nuanced and fleshed out view of atonement when we sing songs that only hold that view is problematic.
I’d be interested in how you work through that problem. It necessitates winnowing out some much beloved tunes.
I share your amazement how this medieval view became normative doctrine.
By len on Feb 1, 2008 | Reply
You stated that penal substitution has its merits. Are you going to let us know what those merits are, or go all McLaren on us?
By Scott on Feb 1, 2008 | Reply
Yeah, I will. I intend to do that in the next post. Needless to say I think PS tries to deal with the sin problem and the need for Christ to die.
By len on Feb 1, 2008 | Reply
Do you have any book recommendations on this topic, especially concerning those that share your view on atonement or have influenced your thinking?
By Scott on Feb 1, 2008 | Reply
Yeah, Stricken By God is essential. As is Heim’s Saved From Sacrifice.
Rene Girard’s work is foundational.
By justin on Feb 1, 2008 | Reply
Its amazing what verse will pop out to you in a whole new way when you start looking at things not solely from the substitutionary atonement goggles.
Namely, 1 Corinthians 1… can’t think of the verse number.
About the cross being foolish to those who are perishing, but to those who are being saved it is the power of God.
When you think about how God used the injustice in that government execution to remind us that there is hope in resurrection, and that we should not fear the principalities and powers, even when they come after us. Man. That verse is one of my favorites now.
By Darren K. on Feb 1, 2008 | Reply
So, I’ve started “Stricken by God?” and am impressed.
The book almost fell out of my hand when I read the discussion of Isa. 53 “We considered him stricken by God… BUT he was pierced for (on account of) our inequities.” The whole chapter takes on a different light…
Under the negatives of penal substitution I would also put that it is manipulative–it tends to play on humanity’s guilt and instead of freeing them from sin and guilt–adds more.
By len on Feb 1, 2008 | Reply
I wonder how much our backgrounds will play into our perspectives. I can’t imagine what Darren has experienced that would make him say that penal substitution is manipulative and adding guilt. That is 180 degrees from what my understanding of substitution is. The death of Jesus doesn’t add guilt, it frees us from all guilt.
We will really need to be patient in this discussion because many times our definitions are going to be radically different. I will try to seek to understand before I want to be understood.
By Justin on Feb 1, 2008 | Reply
I can.
Every single church camp. Every single youth rally. How many songs do we sing about how Jesus went through absolute hell, and did it because you’re a sinner.
One song I can think of
Can he still feel the nails
everytime I fail
Can he hear the crowd cry crucify again
Am I causing him pain
then I know I’ve got to change
cause I just can’t bear the thought of hurting him
Or another
My precious Savior suffered pain and agony
He bore it all (Freely bore it all)
That I might live (I with Him might live)
He broke the bonds of sin and set the captive free
He bore it all that I might live
They placed a crown of thorns upon my Savior’s head
He bore it all (Freely bore it all)
That I might live (I with Him might live)
My cruel man, with spear, his side was pierced and bled
He bore it all that I might live
Or yet another
There was one who was willing to die in my stead
that a soul so unworthy might live
There was One Who was willing to die in my stead,
That a soul so unworthy might live;
And the path to the cross He was willing to tread,
All the sins of my life to forgive.
* Refrain:
They are nailed to the cross! They are nailed to the cross!
Oh, how much He was willing to bear!
With what anguish and loss Jesus went to the cross,
But He carried my sins with Him there.
I can go on if ya’ll want me to…
By TH on Feb 1, 2008 | Reply
I believe that Anselm sought to explain, the best way he knew, a “reason” for the death of Jesus. It seems that Anselm is reacting against Abelard’s Moral Exemplar theory of Jesus in which the cross wasn’t necessary, but a wonderful demonstration of love nonetheless. Therefore, Anselm wanted to demonstrate just how “important” the cross was/is by emphasizing the redeeming nature of the cross event. I believe he overstates his position back then, but I doubt that he would approve of what has become of his ideas now.
I agree with Darren that PS is certainly capable (though not always) of inciting feelings of guilt. It seems that many are “thankful” for the gift of Jesus’ death on the cross, but that gratitude is often (but not always) quickly exchanged for a life that remains “indebted” and weighed down with a certain sense works-based-righteousness, even among those who do not believe in such.
I also believe you’re right Len. We can’t help but allow our perspectives to influence our view of atonement. Such is the nature of interpretation at any level, and thus the frustration at arriving at the common ground most of us seek.
I’m looking forward to the unfolding of this discussion. Thanks, Scott, for prompting us to consider such an increasingly revisited, and rightly fully so, tenant of our theology.
By Scott on Feb 1, 2008 | Reply
Justin, what helps me with the nonviolent approach is that it attempts to be a more holistic understanding of what is taking place at the cross. You and Darren both mention passages that, with the proper understanding, lead us to surmise that atonement is much bigger than we think it is.
Darren, I’m glad you got the book. It’s a tremendous resource from several theologians that really gets to the heart of the issue.
By Scott on Feb 1, 2008 | Reply
Len, there is no doubt that this is a very difficult discussion. I haven’t moved this far without there being a great deal of angst over leaving behind what I thought was the only scriptural interpretation for so long. Upon understanding that it is a position that is 1000 years old helps tremendously.
I do agree that the traditional approach is designed to free us from guilt but, as the songs Justin mentions, there are many instances where it does produce guilt response.
I really hope that we can progress in this discussion with care, caution and a mutual respect.
By Scott on Feb 1, 2008 | Reply
TH, sorry your comment got hung up in the spam filter. I’m not sure why.
You are right, I believe. There was a reaction on Anselm’s part to Abelard and he has become a convenient whipping boy in this discussion. Calvin, et al most likely codified penal substitution in a manner that Anselm didn’t intend.
I think it’s also important to note that rejection penal substitution does not negate the power of the cross as I suspect many proponents fear when it is challenged. It instead tries to find the full power of redemption.
By Jonathan on Feb 4, 2008 | Reply
Like Len (and the Hebrew writer in chapter 10) said, Jesus’ sacrifice is distinguished from those that came before because it removed guilt forever. On the other hand, I can also buy that we (for example, in how we celebrate mourn the Lord’s supper) tend to feel guilty that our guilt caused the need for sacrifice rather than focusing on the joy of the guilt being removed once and for all.
By Jonathan on Feb 4, 2008 | Reply
My html tags were stripped out…there was supposed to be a strikethrough applied to “celebrate” in the above comment.
By Robin on Feb 4, 2008 | Reply
God has rules that we could never keep.
There was a gap between God and his creation.
Christ came.
Christ lived.
Christ died.
Christ rose from the dead.
That gap was filled by Christ.
All who believe in Him will be saved.
By scott on Feb 4, 2008 | Reply
I’m not sure I follow the point here. There is nobody making anywhere remotely near the statement that salvation isn’t found in Christ. Of course it is.
The point here is to deepen our understanding of what Christ did and achieved. It’s dicey ground to reduce it to a mere formula.
By Robin on Feb 4, 2008 | Reply
Why is it dicey? A lot of time is spent dissecting Christianity that leads us away from the truth and divides us all into compartments of differing theories and interpretations within one common belief. For me my belief comes in simple terms.
By scott on Feb 4, 2008 | Reply
It’s dicey because just reducing it to simple terms misses out on the mystery, the nuance, the power and the complexity of faith.
That is why Scripture implores us to come and reason together, to work out our salvation with fear and trembling, to dig deeper into wisdom and understanding.
If we think that we just hold the simple truth and any attempt to understand and study and discuss “leads us away from the truth” then we create an orthodoxy that seeks conformity as the path to salvation.
By Justin on Feb 4, 2008 | Reply
I’m finding out more and more that nuance is a dirty word in conservative evangelical circles.
Its why, “you’re either with us, or your with the terrorists plays so well”
Robin,
Have you ever thought why verses like “true religion is caring for the widows and orphans” exist. Or why the law failed? It wasn’t because God didn’t forgive, there was forgiveness of sins before Christ came.
It could be because the sacrifice of Christ and the power of God being shown through resurrection then freed the people of the world to operate in a new way. When death entered into the world, we became pragmatic. Now, instead of living a life that was free from worry, we live in a broken world with the constant threat of death. Its all around us. And when we’re constantly worried about that, we live our lives very selfishly. Through the resurrection, we have been freed from that fear. This faith in our resurrection, due to the resurrection of Christ, shows us that following his example is no longer foolish. Whereas before, when there was no promise of resurrection, why would someone willingly let themselves be killed because they loved people too much? Pragmaticism says, well, love people, but not so much that its going to cause scorn, or imprisonment, or death, because then, you cannot change things. But because of the sacrifice of Christ on the cross, we are freed from the worry of death, and we live in the paradigm that Christ sets for us, one that is willing to go places and do things that the world finds foolish, because its dangerous, or embarrassing, etc. We know that the end doesn’t come when we are buried in the ground, so, while it is sad for those still alive, our unjust deaths are a statement to the world that everything must change, and is changing.
By Robin on Feb 4, 2008 | Reply
John 3:16 says it all for me. Perhaps not for you but then again, I am a simple person.
By scott on Feb 4, 2008 | Reply
Robin, I agree. John 3:16 says a lot. But what does it mean? God so loves says a lot of things and people disagree greatly as to what love truly means. As the years, generations and interpretations progress it is very difficult to get back to the core idea.
The idea that we can read scripture wholly divorced from our traditions and our own interpretation is not probable.
You have a deeply held set of beliefs. As do all of us who participate in this blog. However, to state that I just believe what it says dismisses the lens through which you view things. I feel relatively safe in saying that your views and interpretations are in line with whatever denomination that you affiliate with.
Scripture must me interpreted and applied. You have to deal with the type of literature a particular verse is, the audience to which it was written, the original intent etc.
The claims of sheer simplicity overlooks 2000 years of interpretations.
In addition, the subject of this blog post, Penal Substitutionary Atonement does not derive out of Scripture. It is 1000 years old.
My point is this: we all struggle with what the original intent is. To say that any of us have that nailed down is quite an overstatement.
By len on Feb 5, 2008 | Reply
Scott,
I hope that you will address why you believe I need to abandon substitutionary death in order to have a full understanding of the cross. What is it about substitution that will make me unable to fully understand the cross?
By Scott on Feb 5, 2008 | Reply
OK, allow me to clarify and apologize for the glacial progression of this discussion.
First, the clarification: I don’t believe that any of us can fully understand the cross. However, I believe there is a far greater understanding that each of us need to aspire to. I am not drawing a line in the sand and saying that my interpretation is the way to fully grasp what took place at Calvary. However, there are important distinction that take place. If we dig our heels in and say that penal substitution is the only answer then this discussion is completely worthless. As I said earlier I believe that there is a substitution that took place. I don’t hold that it was penal in nature. Nor is there early church evidence that I should.
Secondly, let me apologize for how slowly I am posting on this. To prepare each post on atonement takes time and energy that I don’t always have. We will move incrementally just as we did in the non-violence posts. I know the temptation is to jump ahead and get to the bottom line but I am unable to do that.
By len on Feb 5, 2008 | Reply
I actually appreciate how slow this conversation is going. That gives me time to digest everyone’s thoughts and ideas. Believe me, I am keeping an open mind on all of this. The slower this proceeds, the easier for me to be open-minded since I can think through and study all the ideas presented.
I didn’t want or expect an answer to this today. If you didn’t believe in the centrality of the cross and resurrection to the gospel you wouldn’t post this at all. I don’t believe you are a heretic. I still hold to a penal aspect of the substitution. I guess I am wondering if you and I can agree to disagree on that as we progress in this……wait for the emergent word……conversation.
By Scott on Feb 5, 2008 | Reply
I think there is a tremendous amount of common ground. We both believe that the cross changes everything. We both believe that the purposes of God were fulfilled at Calvary. We both believe that salvation comes from the atoning work of Christ.
It’s all about Jesus.
By TH on Feb 5, 2008 | Reply
Scott -
Thanks for “taking your time” in this, and for taking the approach that there is plenty of room at the table for all who believe differently from your eventual end. The New Testament is pregnant with atoning metaphors and I too believe that it does our understanding of Jesus’ atoning work good to explore them all. It’s not that a substitutionary atonement doesn’t exist - it clearly does - but it is not the only way of explaining or understanding the cross event.
It’s interesting to me that Campbell and Stone (two pioneers in America’s Great Awakening and champions of a “simple faith”) greatly disagreed on this issue. Campbell was a penal substitutionary guy through and through while the thought of God punishing God’s own son in the place of us was unheard of to a guy like Stone. A reminder to those of us who find ourselves in the midst of a heritage that lets the Bible speak for itself - it truly isn’t always as simple as it seems.
By Scott on Feb 6, 2008 | Reply
TH, thanks for the insight into our restoration heritage. It’s encouraging that there can be a place at the table for each of us.
By Robin on Feb 6, 2008 | Reply
I guess what I am trying to say is that regardless of which theory you embrace is the end result any different? I am sure all these theories can be upheld with biblical substantiation, but does that change the end result that Christ died for our sins?
By Andrew Klager on Feb 15, 2008 | Reply
Hey, everyone. Andrew Klager here (contributor in Stricken by God?). If you want to watch Brad talk about the book and address a few of the issues you have brought up here, you can watch him on the It’s a New Day website here: http://www.newday.org/guests/?date=2008-02-08 (just click the little red eyeballs on the right). Of course, in an effort to accommodate a general audience, Brad doesn’t get incredibly technical and therefore attempts to be more accessible in this interview. There are three parts. Peace.