The evangelical/theological world is unbiblically vicious & vitrolic when it comes to arguing for their theological system of choice. This is the result of theological elitism that is found in every systematic camp from fundamentalism to liberalism. Judgement day will leave many dumbfounded when many find that God’s bigger and wiser than their man made system;
What I would say about atonement is this. Theories of atonement rightly focus on the attributes of God. Noone argues that. However, different views focus on different attributes of God. Substitutionary atonement focuses more on majesty, holiness, and justice: whereas Moral Influencer focuses merely on Love.
The biggest problem I have with Moral Influencer is that God is perceived as essentially love to the virtual exclusion of His justice and holiness. Tell me if I’m wrong, but is this not the case? Love is NOT mutually exclusive to holiness and justice. We can't allow language to confuse our perception of God. For instance, anytime we overemphasize one attribute of God over another attribute of God equally as true, a misconception of God can often happen, which is true of all theological camps.
While Paul’s soteriology surly was culturally influenced, we can’t negate his conclusions on propitiation and label them restrictive rather than universal. I'm confused about the moral influencer's view of sin. If sin doesn’t deserve punishment, then is there a reality of sin or just a spiritual sickness? What is a spiritual sickness? This begs a question about the nature and condition of man etc. At this point, our theological systems determine our hermeneutic which becomes dangerous.
The death of Christ was more than mere bad fortune of God’s mission to love. Is there no need for retribution? The crucifixion is more profound than Christ being a trophy of Love.
I simply can’t get past the innumerable scriptures that discuss Christ dying for our sin, bearing our sin, and dying as a propitiation. If Christ didn’t pay for our sins, how do we trust him to forgive our sins?
I may be wrong in labeling Bell as a moral influencer as I alluded to friend earlier; someone said he is Schleiermacher 2.0? They may be right; I'm not sure about labeling Rob Bell as anything, but his view of atonement may be more mystical. That is if he’s willing to admit. At any rate, these "new" evangelical views are nothing new, but rather, a repackaging of late 19th and early 20th century protestant liberalism.
It is certainly true that Christ is an example for us in his death, but I’m not convinced atonement ends there.
The more I read scripture, the more I agree with the old hymn that reads "what can wash away my sin? what can make me whole again? Nothing but the blood of Jesus."
Now, I would add that some Christians can overly fixate on asceticism, self flagellation, and the brutal passion of our Lord to the point of an R rated movie. But His passion is a reality and there is worship spiritual growth found in it.
BTW, sorry you found me on a day that I’m brutally honest & non-ecumenical. Hope this finds you well.
This post was created from a friend in Atlanta who supports a moral influence view of atonement and asked me my brief thoughts on substitutionary vs. moral influence.
"This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins" (1 John 4:10)
I would also like to say something of "Sin" and the assertion that "our theological system determines our hermeneutic and that is dangerous."
ReplyDeleteMy theology of Sin isn't glossing over it--I think that's one place where I may differ from perceptions of 19th century liberalism--even though I got it from a 30th century liberal. Tillich speaks of Sin as that which is counter to the work of God in the world--a force, not individual, isolated (Tillich says "petty" which is a bit harsh) "sins". The moral of all that, for me, is that Sin is a very real reality--and that that self-indulgence, self-reliance, self-serving force is constantly as close as our next breath--not in a Divine referee calling fouls when we have a thought, act or indulgence that violates some rule but as something that contributes to the chaotic darkness of Sin in the world at large--the kind of thoughts and actions that seek only to preserve one's own status and position--the kinds that resists love and puts perfect love on a cruel cross. That's more Moltmann than anything, and I think you might find him (if you haven't already) to be a sort of via media between penal substitutionary (which leaves an angry blood-thirsty God pacified by the sacrifice of his own son) and moral influence (which says Jesus died and that's sad, but at least he showed us how to live while he was here). That's probably an unfair characterization of both extremes, but not without theological root that is ultimately something of a flaw, at least to me.
Finally, the whole "theology determining your hermeneutic"--I don't expect us to be reconciled here. I recently mixed it up with another much more conservative brother than myself. After posting a string of statements about "standing alone on God's word" he expressed frustration that I had not addressed his responses. I didn't mean to be rude, but we were coming from such different basic assumptions about Scripture that it wasn't really the same conversation. I don't think that's exactly the case here, but I'll put the caveat that you would be right to reject what I'm putting down--and it's okay if you do!
ReplyDeleteI don't think we have a hermeneutic that isn't influenced by our own theology. We can't read text without knowing our own context and how it influences our reading. It's hard for an older sibling to have sympathy for Jacob--or the prodigal. Those are simple, possibly superfluous examples, but the point remains--we can't read the text without reading the good and bad of our own personal, human, visceral experience into it. Any attempt at subjectivity is, to me anyway, disingenuous if it discounts what the reader/interpreter is already bringing to the text. Similarly, the idea of "getting back to the text" is captive to manuscript choices, reliability of readings and all sorts of other social-scientific and anthropological factors. The flaw of the tradition-historical movement is that many used this to dismiss or discount any "meaning" instead of embracing the plurality of meanings in any given text--which is why it's so beautiful, dynamic, and even "living and active." It's also the reason you and I and millions of others can get away with preaching one text 100 different ways within our lifetime and feel like we've nailed it (or missed it) every single time! Again, I understand if that's an idea you're not down with, and I genuinely respect it--but that's why to me it's not one invalidating the other.
I'd be interested to know what you make of Moltmann. Also, there's an interesting book called "The Creative Suffering of God" by Paul Fiddes who is the dean of Regents Park (the Baptist part) of Oxford. It was a CRAZY read but it has had more influence on my thoughts on suffering/evil and atonement than I could have ever anticipated. I too, hope you guys are well and enjoying the new house--congratulations on that and the new promotion--I'm sure it's both exciting and overwhelming but I'm confident (as are those who know you) that God knows what God is doing and there's wonderful things ahead for you guys!
Good thoughts Trey. Hopefully this summer, I can get to some of the books on my reading list so I can "love the lord with all of your MIND" I enjoy the dialogue because it is something we are seeing making a big wave throughout evangelicalism and the college world. (except we use the theological lingo) I need to be more astute in the emergent world so maybe i can check out Motlmann and let you know what I think.
ReplyDeleteWhen people start talking of these atonement models, they tend to exclusively pick one model... Is this the biblical way to approach atonement models? If these models are taught by scripture, maybe the better question is “how do we integrate them into our Christian lives?” Moreover, We don’t have the right to pick one and shun the rest; Maybe biblical integration should be the discussion. Not a popular systematic idea...
ReplyDelete