Christendom: A House Divided

[Kane]

In Christian theology there are three main theories of the atonement:

• 1. Jesus's crucifixion was to appease the wrath of God. God cannot countenance sin, and in his holiness must obliterate sin. Therefore Jesus, as a representative of the human race, was nailed to the cross as a sacrifice for all of humanity's sins -- past, present, and future. That is, Christ voluntarily assumed the sins of humanity on himself and died in place of the rest of humanity. This theory, crudely summarised as it is, is known as the penal substitutionary atonement.
  2. Christ came to conquer death by dying on the cross. Effectively, Christ acted as 'bait' to draw the devil away from humanity, and in so doing removed the devil's hold on humanity. It's a compliment to the words Christ uttered early in his ministry, "I have called you to be fishers of men." This theory is known as the "Ransom theory", or more recently the Christus Victor atonement.
  3. Jesus acted as the ultimate exemplar, and when we take heed of his sacrificial love our moral intentions are influenced christward. In short, Christ's life and sacrifice inclines our morals godward, thereby sanctifying us to be in his presence. This is known as the moral influence theory of atonement.

In the past few years, there has been a re-visitation of these theories. Theologians from different loyalties have bandied about their prefered vision of Christ's soteriological efforts. One book in particular has risen to the top of the academic list, Stricken by God? Nonviolent Identification and the Victory of Christ (2007). The book explores the various reasons for the necessity of certain theories, why the authors believe the theories they do, and how those theories are applied to everyday life.

It's editor and contributing author, Brad Jersak, admits his preference for the penal substitution theory. Nevertheless, in this article, professor and author Hans Boersma cautions against placing all one's philosophical capital in a single theory of the atonement. "The problem, said Boersma, is to take any one of these approaches and insist it is right and the others are wrong." This is sensible because prizing one theory exclusively excludes the beneficial points of the other theories.

The same holds true in other Christian academic applications. The novice theologian will place great import on a certain 'proof' of the existence of God. I had a fondness for the Ontological Argument back in my college days, but turned a snooty nose up at Kalam's version of the Cosmological Argument, for example. It wasn't until a good friend of mine, the late Hugh Hill (1958 - 2007) turned my head to the notion of a cumulative case for God's existence that I recognised it wasn't necessary to remain beholden to this-or-that particular 'proof' for the existence of God.

It's in that respect that I think it inane to cite a particular view of the atonement as the exclusively right view of Christ's death: it is the place of a novice or dilettante to throw one's lot in with a singular theory of the atonement.

To press this point a little further, it is instructive to note Boersma's final contribution to the article noted above:

Therefore, it is important to "bring humility to the table" and try to understand each other. We can "never say we have explained it all," said Boersma, since human language is "always inadequate to fully define the divine mystery."

True: human language cannot adequately define either the 'divine' or 'mystery'. Which is why I think Boersma would've done well to admit more by saying less. If Boersma had said in regards to the atonement that we can "never say we have explained it" and that human language is "always inadequate" we may have had a better rendering of the case. We would also have cause to graduate beyond the useless amateur quibblings of exclusivist atonement theory loyalties.

On a much grander scale, this is the same issue I have with Christian communities as a whole, if I can say that and make any sense. Let me explain. No-one is surprised when presented with the fact that Christianity is divided into many houses: Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, Anabaptists, Congregationalists, Pentecostals, Anglicans, the Emergent Church, the Eastern Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox, ad-seemingly-infinitum.

Each grouping considers itself the model of unvarnished and inviolate orthodoxy alive today. I like to call this peculiarity of Christendom "local orthodoxy by attrition". That is, if it's said long enough and loud enough, eventually everyone will concede that "that's what so-and-so thinks about itself, so just let them have their illusions; we know that we're really the true orthodoxy." The same psychology, quite interestingly, holds true for liars, too: if they repeat their falsehoods long enough, they eventually believe them to be true.

Such self-exculpating tactics only reinforce what they're trying to avoid. That is, by denying the notion of orthodoxy to other Christian communities while remaining loyal to another one, a person can only be left with patronising concessions to faith-traditions not their own. This means that one believes their own particular faith-community to be the purest expression of biblical community above and beyond all others. This is a mark of superficiality, specious reasoning, and religious snobbery adopted by most Christians very quickly after conversion. Catholics and Lutherans, especially with their notion that they are the "one true church", are quite masterful at perpetuating such insidious sophistries.

It is much more sensible to regard the Christian communities of the world as part of a cumulative culture for Christ than a "house divided against itself", to borrow Christ's portentous words. But as long as Christians bark and bellow over which atonement theory is better and more right, which 'proof' is more accurate, which faith-tradition is purer, more orthodox, and therefore more fully in the faith -- as long as the house of Christianity remains divided against itself, we can reasonably speculate on Christ's conclusion that that house "will surely fall".

[shunyadragon]

In Christian theology there are three main theories of the atonement:

• 1. Jesus's crucifixion was to appease the wrath of God. God cannot countenance sin, and in his holiness must obliterate sin. Therefore Jesus, as a representative of the human race, was nailed to the cross as a sacrifice for all of humanity's sins -- past, present, and future. That is, Christ voluntarily assumed the sins of humanity on himself and died in place of the rest of humanity. This theory, crudely summarised as it is, is known as the penal substitutionary atonement.
  2. Christ came to conquer death by dying on the cross. Effectively, Christ acted as 'bait' to draw the devil away from humanity, and in so doing removed the devil's hold on humanity. It's a compliment to the words Christ uttered early in his ministry, "I have called you to be fishers of men." This theory is known as the "Ransom theory", or more recently the Christus Victor atonement.
  3. Jesus acted as the ultimate exemplar, and when we take heed of his sacrificial love our moral intentions are influenced christward. In short, Christ's life and sacrifice inclines our morals godward, thereby sanctifying us to be in his presence. This is known as the moral influence theory of atonement.

In the past few years, there has been a re-visitation of these theories. Theologians from different loyalties have bandied about their prefered vision of Christ's soteriological efforts. One book in particular has risen to the top of the academic list, Stricken by God? Nonviolent Identification and the Victory of Christ (2007). The book explores the various reasons for the necessity of certain theories, why the authors believe the theories they do, and how those theories are applied to everyday life.

It's editor and contributing author, Brad Jersak, admits his preference for the penal substitution theory. Nevertheless, in this article, professor and author Hans Boersma cautions against placing all one's philosophical capital in a single theory of the atonement. "The problem, said Boersma, is to take any one of these approaches and insist it is right and the others are wrong." This is sensible because prizing one theory exclusively excludes the beneficial points of the other theories.

The same holds true in other Christian academic applications. The novice theologian will place great import on a certain 'proof' of the existence of God. I had a fondness for the Ontological Argument back in my college days, but turned a snooty nose up at Kalam's version of the Cosmological Argument, for example. It wasn't until a good friend of mine, the late Hugh Hill (1958 - 2007) turned my head to the notion of a cumulative case for God's existence that I recognised it wasn't necessary to remain beholden to this-or-that particular 'proof' for the existence of God.

It's in that respect that I think it inane to cite a particular view of the atonement as the exclusively right view of Christ's death: it is the place of a novice or dilettante to throw one's lot in with a singular theory of the atonement.

To press this point a little further, it is instructive to note Boersma's final contribution to the article noted above:

Therefore, it is important to "bring humility to the table" and try to understand each other. We can "never say we have explained it all," said Boersma, since human language is "always inadequate to fully define the divine mystery."

True: human language cannot adequately define either the 'divine' or 'mystery'. Which is why I think Boersma would've done well to admit more by saying less. If Boersma had said in regards to the atonement that we can "never say we have explained it" and that human language is "always inadequate" we may have had a better rendering of the case. We would also have cause to graduate beyond the useless amateur quibblings of exclusivist atonement theory loyalties.

On a much grander scale, this is the same issue I have with Christian communities as a whole, if I can say that and make any sense. Let me explain. No-one is surprised when presented with the fact that Christianity is divided into many houses: Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, Anabaptists, Congregationalists, Pentecostals, Anglicans, the Emergent Church, the Eastern Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox, ad-seemingly-infinitum.

Each grouping considers itself the model of unvarnished and inviolate orthodoxy alive today. I like to call this peculiarity of Christendom "local orthodoxy by attrition". That is, if it's said long enough and loud enough, eventually everyone will concede that "that's what so-and-so thinks about itself, so just let them have their illusions; we know that we're really the true orthodoxy." The same psychology, quite interestingly, holds true for liars, too: if they repeat their falsehoods long enough, they eventually believe them to be true.

Such self-exculpating tactics only reinforce what they're trying to avoid. That is, by denying the notion of orthodoxy to other Christian communities while remaining loyal to another one, a person can only be left with patronising concessions to faith-traditions not their own. This means that one believes their own particular faith-community to be the purest expression of biblical community above and beyond all others. This is a mark of superficiality, specious reasoning, and religious snobbery adopted by most Christians very quickly after conversion. Catholics and Lutherans, especially with their notion that they are the "one true church", are quite masterful at perpetuating such insidious sophistries.

It is much more sensible to regard the Christian communities of the world as part of a cumulative culture for Christ than a "house divided against itself", to borrow Christ's portentous words. But as long as Christians bark and bellow over which atonement theory is better and more right, which 'proof' is more accurate, which faith-tradition is purer, more orthodox, and therefore more fully in the faith -- as long as the house of Christianity remains divided against itself, we can reasonably speculate on Christ's conclusion that that house "will surely fall".

Interesting and informative

[aegis]

In Christian theology there are three main theories of the atonement:

• 1. Jesus's crucifixion was to appease the wrath of God. God cannot countenance sin, and in his holiness must obliterate sin. Therefore Jesus, as a representative of the human race, was nailed to the cross as a sacrifice for all of humanity's sins -- past, present, and future. That is, Christ voluntarily assumed the sins of humanity on himself and died in place of the rest of humanity. This theory, crudely summarised as it is, is known as the penal substitutionary atonement.
  2. Christ came to conquer death by dying on the cross. Effectively, Christ acted as 'bait' to draw the devil away from humanity, and in so doing removed the devil's hold on humanity. It's a compliment to the words Christ uttered early in his ministry, "I have called you to be fishers of men." This theory is known as the "Ransom theory", or more recently the Christus Victor atonement.
  3. Jesus acted as the ultimate exemplar, and when we take heed of his sacrificial love our moral intentions are influenced christward. In short, Christ's life and sacrifice inclines our morals godward, thereby sanctifying us to be in his presence. This is known as the moral influence theory of atonement.

In the past few years, there has been a re-visitation of these theories. Theologians from different loyalties have bandied about their prefered vision of Christ's soteriological efforts. One book in particular has risen to the top of the academic list, Stricken by God? Nonviolent Identification and the Victory of Christ (2007). The book explores the various reasons for the necessity of certain theories, why the authors believe the theories they do, and how those theories are applied to everyday life.

It's editor and contributing author, Brad Jersak, admits his preference for the penal substitution theory. Nevertheless, in this article, professor and author Hans Boersma cautions against placing all one's philosophical capital in a single theory of the atonement. "The problem, said Boersma, is to take any one of these approaches and insist it is right and the others are wrong." This is sensible because prizing one theory exclusively excludes the beneficial points of the other theories.

The same holds true in other Christian academic applications. The novice theologian will place great import on a certain 'proof' of the existence of God. I had a fondness for the Ontological Argument back in my college days, but turned a snooty nose up at Kalam's version of the Cosmological Argument, for example. It wasn't until a good friend of mine, the late Hugh Hill (1958 - 2007) turned my head to the notion of a cumulative case for God's existence that I recognised it wasn't necessary to remain beholden to this-or-that particular 'proof' for the existence of God.

It's in that respect that I think it inane to cite a particular view of the atonement as the exclusively right view of Christ's death: it is the place of a novice or dilettante to throw one's lot in with a singular theory of the atonement.

To press this point a little further, it is instructive to note Boersma's final contribution to the article noted above:

Therefore, it is important to "bring humility to the table" and try to understand each other. We can "never say we have explained it all," said Boersma, since human language is "always inadequate to fully define the divine mystery."

True: human language cannot adequately define either the 'divine' or 'mystery'. Which is why I think Boersma would've done well to admit more by saying less. If Boersma had said in regards to the atonement that we can "never say we have explained it" and that human language is "always inadequate" we may have had a better rendering of the case. We would also have cause to graduate beyond the useless amateur quibblings of exclusivist atonement theory loyalties.

On a much grander scale, this is the same issue I have with Christian communities as a whole, if I can say that and make any sense. Let me explain. No-one is surprised when presented with the fact that Christianity is divided into many houses: Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, Anabaptists, Congregationalists, Pentecostals, Anglicans, the Emergent Church, the Eastern Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox, ad-seemingly-infinitum.

Each grouping considers itself the model of unvarnished and inviolate orthodoxy alive today. I like to call this peculiarity of Christendom "local orthodoxy by attrition". That is, if it's said long enough and loud enough, eventually everyone will concede that "that's what so-and-so thinks about itself, so just let them have their illusions; we know that we're really the true orthodoxy." The same psychology, quite interestingly, holds true for liars, too: if they repeat their falsehoods long enough, they eventually believe them to be true.

Such self-exculpating tactics only reinforce what they're trying to avoid. That is, by denying the notion of orthodoxy to other Christian communities while remaining loyal to another one, a person can only be left with patronising concessions to faith-traditions not their own. This means that one believes their own particular faith-community to be the purest expression of biblical community above and beyond all others. This is a mark of superficiality, specious reasoning, and religious snobbery adopted by most Christians very quickly after conversion. Catholics and Lutherans, especially with their notion that they are the "one true church", are quite masterful at perpetuating such insidious sophistries.

It is much more sensible to regard the Christian communities of the world as part of a cumulative culture for Christ than a "house divided against itself", to borrow Christ's portentous words. But as long as Christians bark and bellow over which atonement theory is better and more right, which 'proof' is more accurate, which faith-tradition is purer, more orthodox, and therefore more fully in the faith -- as long as the house of Christianity remains divided against itself, we can reasonably speculate on Christ's conclusion that that house "will surely fall".

Thanks for a nice post. I agree with you totally.

I want to add that I agree with Richard Foster's view that there are different streams of Christian traditions: e.g. spiritualist, charismatic traditions, social action traditions, intellectualists....etc..and God can use each tradition to emphasize certain important qualities. No one is perfect , except Christ, and each tradition has their strengths and weaknesses. We should learn from each traditions.

Throughout history of the Church, in different era, specific traditions may rise up to take on the challenges of their time.

I wonder what Christian traditions are more relevant and powerful as witnessess in our postmodern time?

regards

aegis

[nightbringer]

1. Those three theories don't seem mutually exclusive to me.

2. There is nothing wrong in thinking your denomination or particular theology is correct. After all not everyone can be right and perhaps you believe you have good reasons to think you are right (if you have x arguments in favour of your position and you don't believe any alternate position has refuted them should you be expected to treat those views as equally truthful?) Problems only arise when one group becomes actively hostile to another.

[RBerman]

Quite an essay, Christopher! I affirm truth in all the models of the atonement you mentioned (and see a distinction between Ransom Theory and Christus Victor as well). The people I have a problem with are those who openly deny some aspect of the atonement; the most commonly attacked one in our society is Penal Substitution.

[Kane]

1. Those three theories don't seem mutually exclusive to me.

Good! Then you see my point.

2. There is nothing wrong in thinking your denomination or particular theology is correct. After all not everyone can be right and perhaps you believe you have good reasons to think you are right (if you have x arguments in favour of your position and you don't believe any alternate position has refuted them should you be expected to treat those views as equally truthful?) Problems only arise when one group becomes actively hostile to another.

I disagree. One should simply think of their denomination as convincing, but be open to learning and correction. Right is not as important as relational, as you somewhat imply when you note that people should not be hostile to each other's differences.

[nightbringer]

I agree that one should be open to learning and correction. But I think you can have an attitude of "I think I'm right on this but I'm willing to be persuaded to another point of view". Much like I'm persuaded of the truth of Christianity generally but (I hope) I'm open to counter-argument.

[Alien]

Something happened to me in a high school science class that has stuck with me ever since.

I had performed an experiment that involved measuring lengths and angles and deriving results using arithmetic. Part of this involved some division, and I had presented my results to four decimal places. The teacher looked over my shoulder and said "Can you measure to four decimal places with a ruler"? I adjusted my results to the nearest tenth of an inch.

I've thought about this a lot since, and I believe it has general applicability, even in theology. We can't derive results by philosophical manipulation that go beyond the precision of the original data.

So by all means speculate about what these things (like the Atonement) might mean, but please, please, don't claim to have some kind of ultimate truth. I suspect, if God does reveal such meanings to us when we are finally in His presence, and if we are equipped to understand them, we will all be surprised.

[Kane]

Something happened to me in a high school science class that has stuck with me ever since.

I had performed an experiment that involved measuring lengths and angles and deriving results using arithmetic. Part of this involved some division, and I had presented my results to four decimal places. The teacher looked over my shoulder and said "Can you measure to four decimal places with a ruler"? I adjusted my results to the nearest tenth of an inch.

I've thought about this a lot since, and I believe it has general applicability, even in theology. We can't derive results by philosophical manipulation that go beyond the precision of the original data.

So by all means speculate about what these things (like the Atonement) might mean, but please, please, don't claim to have some kind of ultimate truth. I suspect, if God does reveal such meanings to us when we are finally in His presence, and if we are equipped to understand them, we will all be surprised.

Nicely stated, Alien.

[Rushing Jaws]

In Christian theology there are three main theories of the atonement:

## Maybe that should be "in Evangelical Protestant theology"....?

[Ben Lomond]

The questions asked by Christopher31 of the various Atonement doctrines can be, and indeed I think should be, extended to ALL creeds and doctrines of Christendom.

The “religion” of Jesus of Nazareth.and his followers was in its origins simply a matter of unselfish ethical conduct, that is common sense and common decency, as a basis of social interaction.

The formation of ANY social group with a vision or agenda to enact will inevitably attract the attention of carpetbaggers and manipulators with their own selfish vested interests to push. Thus it was with the organization of Jesus and his disciples; it was only a matter of time until this group, congregation, church, eclesia or whatever else you may call it, was hijacked and the original Jewish Hebrew values and concepts were substituted with Pagan Greek and Latin thinking.

Indeed on several occasions the NT tells how even within their own lifetime, the disciples bewailed how their message was being subtly misrepresented and abused.

After the departure of Jesus from Palestine in 30AD, the Roman massacre of Jerusalem in 70AD resulting in the dispersal of the “original” Jewish remnant, and as a result of the astounding success of Paul’s evangelism, the Jews of the Jesus movement were “flooded” by people whose thinking process was aligned more with Greek mathematics and science (see 1Co 1:22/23. Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles).

The philosophically and mathematically inclined Greeks took on this new Jewish religion and proceeded to dissect and analyze it through the prism of their own thinking processes. The TRIANGLE (Aristotle and Pythagoras) and the concept of “the gods have come down in the likeness of men” (Acts 14:11) sat very easily with the pagan Greeks who proceeded to infuse these concepts into their new religion acquired from the Jews, and by the 2nd Century the hijacking of Jesus was complete.

The underlying precept of Jesus and his disciples was that entry into the kingdom of God was attained only through LOVE. Love of God, and love of Truth, Justice and Compassion towards one’s fellow man. In order to arrive at an understanding of these precepts (which were really only a knowledge of one’s self) required one to “wake up and turn over a new page.” And it is upon this simple concept that the psychology of crucifixion / resurrection rests. The crucifixion / resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth is the pivotal psychology of all that the disciples preached, and it only becomes relevant when it is applied on an individual basis in our own life.

Neither Jesus nor the disciples advocated a necessity to believe in ANY creed or doctrine remotely akin to Holy Trinity, Virgin Birth or Incarnation etc etc etc. It is the professional theologians of Christendom, like their brothers in the Jerusalem Temple, who have humbugged the precepts of Jehovah God and turned Jesus of Nazareth into a fine talking point for their own vested interests.

Ben Lomond.
= = = = = = = = = =

[Rainbow Brite]

...like trying to insert your pet theory of non-Virgin Birth into a thread about atonement haha.

Anyway...I mentioned these concerns in the PS thread, where only one step in the process of atonement is often promoted as the entire means of atonement. When in fact atonement is made possible by what is described in many of the various theories, in phases and steps, according to the Bible.

For example, the obedience of Jesus in going to the cross atones for the world by ending the failure and sour grape of Adam so that we die only for our own sins not for his. Then atonement for Israel in much the same way as Jesus accepts responsibility for its sins as its king. Thus fulfilling the New Covenant and Suffering Servant atonements described in Jeremiah. Then once sins of our fathers are cleared, as leader he has power to give us mercy if we repent, the personal atonement.

This is also saying Jesus made atonement for himself since being fully man, he was condemned to die for the sins of his fathers Adam and Israel just like the rest of us, a point often overlooked by proponents of various theories.

[Kane]

...like trying to insert your pet theory of non-Virgin Birth into a thread about atonement haha.

No. The thread is not about atonement. The subject of the atonement was simply a vehicle for the overall point, which was that Christendom is divided and in danger of collapsing if it does not relax and stop quibbling over things it has no way of proving definitively. There is no way to prove the penal substitutionary theory as the actual effect of Christ's sacrifice. There is no way to prove the moral influence theory as the actual effect of Christ's sacrifice. There is no way to prove the Christus victor model as the actual effect of Christ's sacrifice. They all have good points, and points of difference. To smooth out the workaday, practical applications of such theories in Christian's lives, however, they have to be taken on cumulatively, not quibbled over in isolation, one group against another group.

And, as has already been pointed out, all matters of doctrine have to be appreciated in a cumulative-case manner where differences can potentially divide people. That is the point of the article, not simply the atonement.

[Kane]

## Maybe that should be "in Evangelical Protestant theology"....?

No, not really, since it was Anselm of Canterbury who popularized the satisfaction theory, which is a welcomed refinement of the penal substitution theory (some people refer to it as the "forensic theory of the atonement", too), and it has held the most sway with Catholics.

The key difference here is that for Anselm, satisfaction is an alternative to punishment, "The honor taken away must be repaid, or punishment must follow." By Christ satisfying our debt of honor to God, we avoid punishment. In Calvinist Penal Substitution, it is the punishment which satisfies the demands of justice.

In any case, Catholics are not exempt from the call to unity within Christendom. However, Catholics regard non-Catholics as having dealt the damage that has led to such a divided house. That is a mistake, historically, because the records show that it was Catholics (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, et al.) who broke away. Catholics divided themselves, but have lumped the blame squarely on the shoulders of the ones who broke away.

Not only does this evade historical responsibility, it also sets up the false precedent that reunification can only be achieved by titular and institutional submission. That is, Christendom can only be re-unified by everybody returning to the Catholic church. This is poor reasoning at best, and utter nonsense at worst. If unity is to take place for Christendom, it has to be with the understanding that differences are not divisions, that the church is whole "in Christ" not "in denomination", and with an eye toward charity moreso than doctrinal absolutes.

Diversity in unity, and unity in diversity. Catholicism, as an institution, does not proffer such a possibility. Nor does any other denomination that presumes it has the proper orthodoxy, including evangelical Protestants.

[Rainbow Brite]

I thought you were focusing on divisions over atonement, though of course Christians are divided on a lot of things.