Sunday, July 28, 2024

The Atonement: God's Solidarity With Humanity

 Photobucket


I.The Atonement: God's Solidarity With Humanity.

A. The inadequacy of Financial Transactions

Many ministers, and therefore, many Christians speak of and think of Jesus' death on the cross as analogous to a financial transaction. Usually this idea goes something like this: we are in hock to the devil because we sinned. God pays the debt we owe by sending Jesus to die for us, and that pays off the devil. The problem with this view is the Bible never says we owe the devil anything. We owe God. The financial transaction model is inadequate. Matters of the soul are much more important than any monetary arrangement and business transactions and banking do not do justice to the import of the issue. Moreover, there is a more sophisticated model; that of the sacrifice for sin. In this model Jesus is like a sacrificial lamb who is murdered in our place. This model is also inadequate because it is based on a primitive notion of sacrifice. The one making the sacrafice pays over something valuable to him to apease an angry God. In this case God is paying himself. This view is also called the "propitiatory view" becuase it is based upon propitiation, which means to turn away wrath. The more meaningful notion is that of Solidarity. The Solidarity or "participatory" view says that Jesus entered human history to participate in our lot as finite humans, and he died as a means of identifying with us. We are under the law of sin and death, we are under curse of the law (we sin, we die, we are not capable in our own human strength of being good enough to merit salvation). IN taking on the penalty of sin (while remaining sinless) Jesus died in our stead; not inthe mannar of a primitive animal sacrifice (that is just a metaphor) but as one of us, so that through identification with us, we might identify with him and therefore, partake of his newness of life.

B. Christ the Perfect Revelation of God to Humanity

In the book of Hebrews it says "in former times God spoke in many and various ways through the prophets, but in these latter times he has spoken more perfectly through his son." Jesus is the perfect revelation of God to humanity. The prophets were speaking for God, but their words were limited in how much they could tell us about God. Jesus was God in the flesh and as such, we can see clearly by his character, his actions, and his teachings what God wants of us and how much God cares about us. God is for humanity, God is on our side! The greatest sign of God's support of our cause as needy humans is Jesus death on the cross, a death in solidarity with us as victims of our own sinful hearts and societies. Thus we can see the lengths God is will to go to to point us toward himself. There are many verses in the Bible that seem to contradict this view. These are the verses which seem to say that Atonement is participatory.

C. Death in Solidarity with Victims

1) Support from Modern Theologians

Three Major Modern Theologians support the solidarity notion of atonement: Jurgen Moltmann (The Crucified God), Matthew L. Lamb (Solidarity With Victims), and D.E.H. Whiteley (The Theology of St. Paul).In the 1980s Moltmann (German Calvinist) was called the greatest living protestant theologian, and made his name in laying the groundwork for what became liberation theology. Lamb (Catholic Priest) was big name in political theology, and Whiteley (scholar at Oxford) was a major Pauline scholar in the 1960s.In his work The Crcified God Moltmann interprits the cry of Jesus on the cross, "my God my God why have you forsaken me" as a statement of solidarity, placing him in identification with all who feel abandoned by God.Whiteley: "If St. Paul can be said to hold a theory of the modus operandi [of the atonement] it is best described as one of salvation through participation [the 'solidarity' view]: Christ shared all of our experience, sin alone excepted, including death in order that we, by virtue of our solidarity with him, might share his life...Paul does not hold a theory of substitution..." (The Theology of St. Paul, 130)An example of one of the great classical theologians of the early chruch who held to a similar view is St. Irenaeus (according to Whiteley, 133).

2) Scriptural

...all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were Baptized into his death.? We were therefore buried with him in baptism into death in order that just as Christ was raised from the death through the glory of the father, we too may live a new life. If we have been united with him in his death we will certainly be united with him in his resurrection.For we know that the old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be rendered powerless, that we should no longer be slaves to sin.--because anyone who has died has been freed from sin.Now if we have died with Christ we believe that we will also live with him, for we know that since Christ was raised from the dead he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him; the death he died to sin he died once for all; but the life he lives he lives to God. In the same way count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Chrsit Jesus.(Romans 6:1-5)

In Short, if we have united ourselves to Christ, entered his death and been raised to life, we participate in his death and resurrection though our act of solidarity, united with Christ in his death, than it stands to reason that his death is an act of solidarity with us, that he expresses his solidarity with humanity in his death.

This is why Jesus cries out on the cross "why have you forsaken me?" According to Moltmann this is an expression of Solidarity with all who feel abandoned by God.Jesus death in solidarity creates the grounds for forgiveness, since it is through his death that we express our solidarity, and through that, share in his life in union with Christ. Many verses seem to suggest a propitiatory view. But these are actually speaking of the affects of the solidarity. "Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him! For if when we were considered God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! What appears to be saying that the shedding of blood is what creates forgiveness is actually saying that the death in solidarity creates the grounds for reconciliation. IT says we were enemies then we were reconciled to him through the death, his expression of solidarity changes the ground, when we express our solidarity and enter into the death we are giving up to God, we move from enemy to friend, and in that sense the shedding of blood, the death in solidarity, creates the conditions through which we can be and are forgiven. He goes on to talk about sharing in his life, which is participation,

solidarity, unity. D. Meaning of Solidarity and Salvation.

Jurgen Moltmann's notion of Solidarity (see The Crucified God) is based upon the notion of Political solidarity. Christ died in Solidarity with victims. He took upon himself a political death by purposely angering the powers of the day. Thus in his death he identifies with victims of oppression. But we are all vitims of oppression. Sin has a social dimension, the injustice we experience as the hands of society and social and governmental institutions is primarily and at a very basic level the result of the social aspects of sin. Power, and political machinations begin in the sinful heart, the ego, the desire for power, and they manifest themselves through institutions built by the will to power over the other. But in a more fundamental sense we are all victims of our own sinful natures. We scheme against others on some level to build ourselve up and secure our conditions in life. IN this sense we cannot help but do injustice to others. In return injustice is done to us.Jesus died in solidarity with us, he underwent the ultimate consequences of living in a sinful world, in order to demonstrate the depths of God's love and God's desire to save us. Take an analogy from political organizing. IN Central America governments often send "death squads" to murder labor unionists and political dissenter. IN Guatemala there were some American organizations which organized for college students to go to Guatemala and escourt the leaders of dissenting groups so that they would not be murdered.

The logic was that the death squads wouldn't hurt an American Student because it would bring bad press and shut off U.S. government funds to their military. As disturbing as these political implications are, let's stay focused on the Gospel. Jesus is like those students, and like some of them, he was actually killed. But unlike them he went out of his way to be killed, to be victimized by the the rage of the sinful and power seeking so that he could illustrate to us the desire of God; that God is on our side, God is on the side of the poor, the victimized, the marginalized, and the lost. Jesus said "a physician is not sent to the well but to the sick."The key to salvation is to accept God's statement of solidarity, to express our solidarity with God by placing ourselves into the death of Christ (by identification with it, by trust in it's efficacy for our salvation).

E. Atonement is a Primitive Concept?

This charge is made quite often by internet-skeptics, especially Jewish anti-missionaries who confuse the concept wtih the notion of Human sacrifice. But the charge rests on the idea that sacrafice itself is a premative notion. If one committs a crime, someone else should not pay for it. This attack can be put forward in many forms but the basic notion revolves around the idea that one person dying for the sins of another, taking the penalty or sacrificing to remove the guilt of another is a primitive concept. None of this applies with the Participatory view of the atonement (solidarity) since the workings of Christ's death, the manner in which it secures salavtion, is neither through turning away of wrath nor taking upon himself other's sins, but the creation of the grounds through which one declares one's own solidarity with God and the grounds through which God accepts that solidarity and extends his own; the identification of God himself with the needs and cares of his own creation.



26 comments:

im-skeptical said...

"IN taking on the penalty of sin (while remaining sinless) Jesus died in our stead; not inthe mannar of a primitive animal sacrifice (that is just a metaphor) but as one of us, so that through identification with us, we might identify with him and therefore, partake of his newness of life."
- If God wants us to identify with him, why not make us more like him? He could make us to be better people, and share his heavenly abode. Instead, he makes a version of himself that comes down to us share to our miserable and painful existence. But we know all along that God doesn't really suffer. He just makes us suffer.

"Jesus is the perfect revelation of God to humanity. ... Jesus was God in the flesh"
- If Jesus was God, why didn't he know everything God knows? The bible says even the Son doesn't know ...

"Major Modern Theologians support the solidarity notion of atonement ... Christ shared all of our experience, sin alone excepted, including death in order that we, by virtue of our solidarity with him, might share his life"
- That's a cruel joke. God doesn't die. He just puts a piece of flesh on the ground, and makes it suffer like the rest of us. But we know that God is still sitting on his throne watching all this, and having a good laugh.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Do you really think that kind of schoolboy criticism will so impress God he wont send you to hell? I doubt very much God will be impressed, because I am not.

why would you assume he didn't die? he did die.

im-skeptical said...

Are you seriously trying to tell me God is dead?

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

No he got better.

Cuttlebones said...

So "Christ died in Solidarity with victims"
But we are victims of the world he created.
This is just more theological reinterpretation to try and make the story make sense.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

this is not the world God created, it's been wrecked. It's fallen. Theology is about explaining things. Unbelief can explain nothing.

Anonymous said...

Joe: this is not the world God created, it's been wrecked. It's fallen.

It is wrecked because God chose to wreck it! If you take Genesis literally (do you?), God lost his rag with Adam, and chose to wreck the world.

Joe: Theology is about explaining things. Unbelief can explain nothing.

Sure, but theology gives us no assurance that the explanation is right. Why is there thunder? That is Zeus angry. It is certainly an explanation, and I agree that that is what theology does. But it is not true, and I think that it is important to note that.

You are right that of itself unbelief explains nothing, but people who have no religious beliefs can indeed explain many and furthermore can give good reason for us to think the explanations are right.

Pix

im-skeptical said...

So God made a beautiful world for us to live in, and we wrecked it because we are bad. God made us, and he made us bad. There's something wrong with that. You can make all kinds of excuses for why God made us bad, but none of them pass the smell test. We need to have free will. Ok, but that doesn't mean we have to be bad. We need to learn life's lessons. Fine, but we could be A students instead of miscreants. God put something in our nature that makes us what we are. He could have done better. I think there's something wrong with God.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Anonymous said...
Joe: this is not the world God created, it's been wrecked. It's fallen.

It is wrecked because God chose to wreck it! If you take Genesis literally (do you?), God lost his rag with Adam, and chose to wreck the world.


God did not wreck it, That is irresponsible, Obviously God's creation is beautiful, we wrecked it..

Joe: Theology is about explaining things. Unbelief can explain nothing.

Sure, but theology gives us no assurance that the explanation is right.

sure it does, to the same extent that skepticism, would explain it

Why is there thunder? That is Zeus angry. It is certainly an explanation, and I agree that that is what theology does. But it is not true, and I think that it is important to note that.

Those are answers given prior to a modern understanding of weather. why would you assume that theology mandates ignorance? It never did, you know The enlightenment French philosophs wanted us to believe it did but it did not. There's no reason to think modern theology would stifle modern answers of science.



You are right that of itself unbelief explains nothing, but people who have no religious beliefs can indeed explain many and furthermore can give good reason for us to think the explanations are right.


It can't about eternal destiny

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Blogger im-skeptical said...
So God made a beautiful world for us to live in, and we wrecked it because we are bad. God made us, and he made us bad.

That's obviously wrong because it would be determinism. We have to choose evil because we are bad but the reason for allowing choice was to have free will. If we are determined to be bad that destroys free will. So it is not a valid answer. It doesn't make us bad just because we can stoup to bad choices. It's possible but not determined.


There's something wrong with that. You can make all kinds of excuses for why God made us bad, but none of them pass the smell test. We need to have free will. Ok, but that doesn't mean we have to be bad. We need to learn life's lessons. Fine, but we could be A students instead of miscreants. God put something in our nature that makes us what we are. He could have done better. I think there's something wrong with God.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

I didn't see this bit: There's something wrong with that. You can make all kinds of excuses for why God made us bad, but none of them pass the smell test. We need to have free will.

God did not make us bad. We fell from a state of Grace. That's why it's called "the fall."


Ok, but that doesn't mean we have to be bad. We need to learn life's lessons. Fine, but we could be A students instead of miscreants. God put something in our nature that makes us what we are. He could have done better. I think there's something wrong with God.


Our choice in the fall did it. You are so intent on blaming God you ignore the true set up. We were created on the image of God and God did not make us fall. we chose oit

Cuttlebones said...

MC: this is not the world God created, it's been wrecked. It's fallen. Theology is about explaining things. Unbelief can explain nothing.
If God is real, this is the world God created. The "fall" changed man. It didn't change the world.
With unbelief, the world is as it is. The product of natural forces. We can investigate and explain a lot, with no reason to invoke a God to fill the gaps.
Theology is about making up a cogent model of belief that fits to the world and how you see it.
That is why this new idea of what Christ's death means, has arisen. The old one wasn't satisfactory.

im-skeptical said...

"God did not make us bad. We fell from a state of Grace. That's why it's called "the fall."
- Ah yes - the good old Christian guilt trip. It's not God's fault I'm bad. It's my fault. I'm the reason Jesus suffered and died. And I feel guilty for that, but I just can't help it because I'm bad. God made me perfect, and I willfully chose to be a bad person. Do you see the incongruity in that, Joe? If I was perfect, why would I make such a choice? Just having free will doesn't make me bad. There has to be something wrong with me - something bad in my nature. Even though God made good, I'm still bad, and willfully so. This doesn't make any sense at all. I would really like to hear an explanation that actually makes sense.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Damn you CB! thanks to you I had to rethink my answer, who told you
you could come in here and make me think? No seriously you did make me think as you usually do, and it's great to see you again.


Cuttlebones said...
MC: this is not the world God created, it's been wrecked. It's fallen. Theology is about explaining things. Unbelief can explain nothing.



If God is real, this is the world God created. The "fall" changed man. It didn't change the world.

I don't think that had man not sinned nature would work differently. But the thought world in which we live is governed by our relations with God, our sin, and our ability to live out the imago dei.


With unbelief, the world is as it is. The product of natural forces. We can investigate and explain a lot, with no reason to invoke a God to fill the gaps.
Theology is about making up a cogent model of belief that fits to the world and how you see it.

Those are good points, but I think the thought world controls the entire world, we even alter nature, we have altered nature though our behavior.

That is why this new idea of what Christ's death means, has arisen. The old one wasn't satisfactory.

they both apply the new one is just extension of the old.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

"God did not make us bad. We fell from a state of Grace. That's why it's called "the fall."
- Ah yes - the good old Christian guilt trip. It's not God's fault I'm bad. It's my fault.

Di you not see how that contradicts whatO a, saying? we have BALANCE BWTEEN SIN NATURE AND IMAGO DEI.


I'm the reason Jesus suffered and died. And I feel guilty for that, but I just can't help it because I'm bad.

Now you are milking it. yet there are some wo talk that way because they feel their sense of guilt and think that's the way to turn people to God. its not inherent and it's not mandated by the Gospel. Jesus said love your neighbor as yourself that means love yourself not hate yourself. They guys where I went to seminary never took that approach, that's the value of a liberal school



Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Skep: Do you see the incongruity in that, Joe? If I was perfect, why would I make such a choice? Just having free will doesn't make me bad. There has to be something wrong with me - something bad in my nature. Even though God made good, I'm still bad, and willfully so. This doesn't make any sense at all. I would really like to hear an explanation that actually makes sense.


Can you not accept when you have done something wrong? I think that is endemic to being a healthy nature adult we have ways of cleansing guilt, we recognize surplus guilt and guilt doesn;t have t send us in to a self-hatred benge,but it is part of being mature to accpet I some times screw up.

Anonymous said...

Joe: Can you not accept when you have done something wrong? I think that is endemic to being a healthy nature adult we have ways of cleansing guilt, we recognize surplus guilt and guilt doesn;t have t send us in to a self-hatred benge,but it is part of being mature to accpet I some times screw up.

What Christianity (some versions anyway) teaches is that we are all so thoroughly wicked that we all deserve to burn in hell for eternity. Definitely not conducive to being a healthy nature adult.

Pix

im-skeptical said...

"Di you not see how that contradicts whatO a, saying? we have BALANCE BWTEEN SIN NATURE AND IMAGO DEI."
- What I don't see is how this makes sense. If God wants us to be less sinful, he could have made us that way. And this is not an issue of free will.

"Now you are milking it."
- The church has been milking it for 2000 years. Have you ever been a Catholic? It's all about making people feel guilty. That's why the image of the crucified Jesus is so prominent. You don't see statues of Jesus the teacher. You see statues of Jesus on the cross. That's just piling on the guilt.

"Can you not accept when you have done something wrong? I think that is endemic to being a healthy nature adult we have ways of cleansing guilt, we recognize surplus guilt and guilt doesn;t have t send us in to a self-hatred benge,but it is part of being mature to accpet I some times screw up.
- Of course I accept my own misdeeds. But my behavior is not without cause. I don't choose my nature. I certainly don't choose to be defiant against God. Who would do that?

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Anonymous said...
Joe: Can you not accept when you have done something wrong? I think that is endemic to being a healthy nature adult we have ways of cleansing guilt, we recognize surplus guilt and guilt doesn;t have t send us in to a self-hatred benge,but it is part of being mature to accpet I some times screw up.

What Christianity (some versions anyway) teaches is that we are all so thoroughly wicked that we all deserve to burn in hell for eternity. Definitely not conducive to being a healthy nature adult.

You know I distinguish between legalists and liberals and see myself as a certain kid of liberal

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

m-skeptical said...
"Di you not see how that contradicts whatO a, saying? we have BALANCE BWTEEN SIN NATURE AND IMAGO DEI."
- What I don't see is how this makes sense. If God wants us to be less sinful, he could have made us that way. And this is not an issue of free will.

makig us to be a certain way is not allowing us to choose the way we would be. one is not free will the other is.

"Now you are milking it."
- The church has been milking it for 2000 years. Have you ever been a Catholic? It's all about making people feel guilty. That's why the image of the crucified Jesus is so prominent. You don't see statues of Jesus the teacher. You see statues of Jesus on the cross. That's just piling on the guilt.

that;s nt all there is to it but that is man's replacement for what God wanted.

"Can you not accept when you have done something wrong? I think that is endemic to being a healthy nature adult we have ways of cleansing guilt, we recognize surplus guilt and guilt doesn;t have t send us in to a self-hatred benge,but it is part of being mature to accpet I some times screw up.
- Of course I accept my own misdeeds. But my behavior is not without cause. I don't choose my nature. I certainly don't choose to be defiant against God. Who would do that?

Relationship with God is about our own development, it's about us evolving to be Christ-like.

im-skeptical said...

"makig us to be a certain way is not allowing us to choose the way we would be. one is not free will the other is."
- Giving people free will does make them behave badly. It simply gives them the choice. Giving them an inherently bad nature is what makes them exercise their choice to behave badly. God gave the angels free will, and they behave much better than humans. Why? Because their nature isn't inherently bad.

"that;s nt all there is to it but that is man's replacement for what God wanted."
- All those images of Jesus on the cross are intended to appeal to our feelings of empathy. The church founders were well aware of this, and they deliberately played upon those feelings.

"Relationship with God is about our own development, it's about us evolving to be Christ-like."
- That doesn't answer the question of why God's people would intentionally choose evil. And the kind of development you are talking about is something I would rather pass on, because it makes you dependent on God (or more likely, those who speak for God) to tell you what's right and how to behave. You don't get to make your own determination. It is imposed on you. That's really sad.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Giving people free will does make them behave badly. It simply gives them the choice. Giving them an inherently bad nature is what makes them exercise their choice to behave badly. God gave the angels free will, and they behave much better than humans. Why? Because their nature isn't inherently bad.

God \did not give ys sin nature. That happened a result of our choices,

"that;s nt all there is to it but that is man's replacement for what God wanted."
- All those images of Jesus on the cross are intended to appeal to our feelings of empathy. The church founders were well aware of this, and they deliberately played upon those feelings.

so what? nothing wrong with that?

"Relationship with God is about our own development, it's about us evolving to be Christ-like."
- That doesn't answer the question of why God's people would intentionally choose evil. And the kind of development you are talking about is something I would rather pass on, because it makes you dependent on God (or more likely, those who speak for God) to tell you what's right and how to behave. You don't get to make your own determination. It is imposed on you. That's really sad.

Only hurting yourself

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Slepie says:"

And the kind of development you are talking about is something I would rather pass on, because it makes you dependent on God (or more likely, those who speak for God) to tell you what's right and how to behave. You don't get to make your own determination. It is imposed on you. That's really sad.

How do you account for the fact that I am a liberal Democrat? In fact a In the Trump years I spent every day working to get him out of the white house. also all my friends are liberal democrats and Christians. If what you said was triewe should all be Tru pers and Repubs

im-skeptical said...

"God \did not give ys sin nature. That happened a result of our choices"
- I meant to say Giving people free will does NOT make them behave badly. So, why do we make these bad choices? You'd have to be insane. Did God make us all insane? We don't make ourselves. God makes us. He made us all inclined to make bad moral choices.

"so what? nothing wrong with that?"
- It's a guilt trip. It manipulates people.

"Only hurting yourself"
- Having the strength to take my own intellectual course doesn't hurt me. Lacking that strength is not a good thing. It makes you a slave to someone else's goals.

"How do you account for the fact that I am a liberal Democrat?"
- That has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

im-skeptical said...
"God \did not give ys sin nature. That happened a result of our choices"
- I meant to say Giving people free will does NOT make them behave badly. So, why do we make these bad choices? You'd have to be insane. Did God make us all insane? We don't make ourselves. God makes us. He made us all inclined to make bad moral choices.

we choose things we want like such as power then wind up having to do bad thing to obtain it or to hang on to it.



"so what? nothing wrong with that?"
- It's a guilt trip. It manipulates people.

if used wrongly

"Only hurting yourself"
- Having the strength to take my own intellectual course doesn't hurt me. Lacking that strength is not a good thing. It makes you a slave to someone else's goals.

It;s to your determent not to know God because it's the best thing there is

"How do you account for the fact that I am a liberal Democrat?"
- That has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

You said Christianity makes you a robot, you implied that, so how you accompt for the fact that I went to a whole seminary of people who are not robots?

im-skeptical said...

"we choose things we want ..."
- We choose according to our nature. That's what free will is all about. But where does our nature come from?

"if used wrongly"
- The church idolizes Jesus as a martyr. And it tells us that it's our fault. And as a Catholic, I have definitely felt the guilt they are laying on me.

"It;s to your determent not to know God because it's the best thing there is"
- I know what it means to be intellectually free. Most religious people don't.

"You said Christianity makes you a robot, you implied that, so how you accompt for the fact that I went to a whole seminary of people who are not robots?"
- What makes you so sure they're not subject to the dictates of religion?