The Way of the Cross- Atonement and the Emerging Church
By Scott Berkhimer |
| |
|
| |
Some time ago I was spending some time writing and thinking about the use of power in the body of Christ. I wanted to reflect on the importance of the cross for how we think about authority, and on what the cross means for how we structure our communities. To be honest, I didn't think that I was writing anything particularly controversial or even original. I'll confess, then, to being quite surprised when someone raised an objection that I was, in this person's words, "multi-tasking the cross". This person elaborated by stating that the cross didn't need to be brought into the discussion at hand; he implied that to do so was to somehow cheapen the cross by connecting the atonement with any sort of ethical imperative or moral example.
Since this conversation, I've tried to pay closer attention when a discussion about the cross or about atonement surfaces. It's a much-discussed topic at the moment, particularly among proponents of the way of understanding atonement called penal substitution. This particular model has received its share of criticism recently as more and more people question some common ways of presenting it. Substitution is, in short, the view that Christ suffered the wrath of God on the cross in our place. Its detractors have referred to it as divine child abuse; its defenders have stated that to deny substitution is to deny Christ.
I'm not out to untangle this particular mess in this brief article. I think that folks on both sides of the divide seem to have a habit of missing the point; much of the argument is about caricatures rather than what people actually believe. One thing, however, does concern me. In defending substitution, I've observed that a growing number of folks seem to be moving away from seeing the cross as our example. This is, I think, a critical error.
The cross, after all, looms large in the New Testament, and not least in its moral force. Jesus himself indicated that he was setting an example; more than once, his followers are instructed to take up the cross and follow him. In fact, he goes so far as to say that the one who does not take up the cross cannot rightly be called his disciple. The cross sits at the center of New Testament ethics. It embodies the stunning self-giving of God to a people who, by and large, spurned the gift. It is, moreover, the way in which we are instructed to imitate Christ. Put simply, without the way of the cross, we do not have a Christian ethic, a way-of-being in the world, a way of following Jesus. To reflect on Jesus' taking up the cross as our example is not in any way a denial of the atonement - it is, rather, a way of thinking deeply, honestly, and soberly about something that dominates the Christian scriptures. To deny this, to remove the moral force from the atonement, is to deny something that is at the heart of what it means to follow Jesus.
This is, of course, not to say that one cannot hold to both substitution and to the cross as example. Quite the opposite, in fact - I would humbly suggest that both must be maintained if one wants to be true to the text. The cross is a part of our Story that resists easy categorization. It needs a multitude of images to begin to convey its meaning - images that should not be put in opposition or even in competition, but that rather should be viewed in harmony, each reinforcing and amplifying the other.
In his remarkable book The Politics of Jesus, theologian John Howard Yoder makes the bold statement that, in the New Testament, the imitation of Christ meant one thing and one thing only - the way of the cross. It's a stunning statement for those of us who have seen Jesus used as a model for everything from evangelism to storytelling in sermons to small group formation to business management. When I first read it, I was convinced that Yoder was wrong - but I have yet to find a place where we are told to imitate Christ that does not involve the cross, and I have long since conceded that he was right. Is reflecting in this way in some way "multi-tasking the cross"? I find it hard to sustain the objection - instead, I find myself continually confronted in the pages of the scriptures with a God who calls us to follow in his footsteps, precisely by picking up that very cross and walking in the path that he has already traveled.
 Scott Berkhimer blogs @ theopraxis and lives in the western suburbs of Philadelphia, PA, home of the Liberty Bell, the cheesesteak, and the Eagles. He is the husband of Joy and the father of two fantastic boys, Jason and Christian. By day he analyzes statistics for a large investment firm, by night he is a student in the LEAD MDiv program at Biblical Theological Seminary in Hatfield, PA, and occasionally...he sleeps. |
| |
|
I think the issue of what constitutes "substitutionary atonement" is very important here. There are a spate of contemporary theological discussions on the faulty notions that traditional penal satisfaction implies about God, both from evangelical and "liberal" quarters.
Substantial evangelical works that discuss this are "Recovering the Scandal of the Cross: Atonement in New Testament & Contemporary Contexts" by Joel B. Green and "A Community Called Atonement (Living Theology)" by Scot McKnight.
"Stricken by God?: Nonviolent Indentification and the Victory of Christ" by Brad Jersak is a collection of essays by top theologians, some very much respected by evangelicals: N.T. Wright, Miroslav Volf, Rowan Williams, Mark Baker etc.
The idea that God needs to have human blood shed to forgive sins seems offensive to many, let's face it, unless you have a prior commitment to an inerrant Bible. I agree with the main of the article that the cross is meant to lead to compassionate praxis but that is not necessarily tied to an Anselmian/penal view of the atonement.
It pops up now and again. Probably the most well-known recent place is Steve Chalke and Alan Mann's book The Lost Message of Jesus. I haven't read the book, so I won't comment on any specifics other than to say there was a widely quoted and discussed piece where this comparison is made. But it's a view that you'll see every so often, if you're watching for it.
You have to admit that many articulations of substitution do not do justice to the Trinitarian nature of the atonement. As a result, it's easy to see how folks arrive at such a conclusion. If the unity of the Father and Son are not maintained, and maintained strongly, then it does come across as violent and even abusive. It's that trinitarian understanding that makes substitution what it is - but most folks who speak about it don't keep the trinitarian emphasis in the center, hence the problem.
Substitution is, in short, the view that Christ suffered the wrath of God on the cross in our place. Its detractors have referred to it as divine child abuse. Could some one give me names of people who belive that the substitutional work of Christ is divine child abuse. This is nothing short of being a heretic.
I agree. To say "it is finished" and continue on our merry way completely negates the ultimate purpose of the cross. You cannot be "IN CHRIST" without having to die to self. You cannot live in the fullness of Christ without experiencing the way of the cross. To be a follower of Christ means that in some way (whether litterally or metaphorically) means you must walk in his steps. (I'm thinking of Rob Bell's description of a disciple in "Velvet Elvis") This was very well written, I enjoyed it immensely!
Alan - well said. I'm in full agreement.
Kester - good thought. I think that we often hear talk of being "saved from" something, which is only half true - the other half is that we are saved to something, in particular to participate in the Kingdom of God here and now. That's where I think some models fall short when viewed alone - they can't really give a sense of "What next?"
Interesting thoughts on atonement. Brian McLaren does a nice job discussing this topic in "The Story We Find Ourselves In". His view is that each individual theory gets the "real significance" of the atonement partially right and that as we view them all together, we get a more complete perspective. Sort of analagous how if we look at the same scene from several different locations (windows) we might see different details and miss others and some may not be visible from any of the locations we've chosen. So the atonement is "More than all the windows can tell us".
Excellent thoughts. Thank you. Too often we take Jesus' statement "it is finished" to mean that, now that we've been saved, we should simply coast through this life as we'd planned and await our reward in the next one.
|
Substantial evangelical works that discuss this are "Recovering the Scandal of the Cross: Atonement in New Testament & Contemporary Contexts" by Joel B. Green and "A Community Called Atonement (Living Theology)" by Scot McKnight.
"Stricken by God?: Nonviolent Indentification and the Victory of Christ" by Brad Jersak is a collection of essays by top theologians, some very much respected by evangelicals: N.T. Wright, Miroslav Volf, Rowan Williams, Mark Baker etc.
The idea that God needs to have human blood shed to forgive sins seems offensive to many, let's face it, unless you have a prior commitment to an inerrant Bible. I agree with the main of the article that the cross is meant to lead to compassionate praxis but that is not necessarily tied to an Anselmian/penal view of the atonement.
You have to admit that many articulations of substitution do not do justice to the Trinitarian nature of the atonement. As a result, it's easy to see how folks arrive at such a conclusion. If the unity of the Father and Son are not maintained, and maintained strongly, then it does come across as violent and even abusive. It's that trinitarian understanding that makes substitution what it is - but most folks who speak about it don't keep the trinitarian emphasis in the center, hence the problem.
Kester - good thought. I think that we often hear talk of being "saved from" something, which is only half true - the other half is that we are saved to something, in particular to participate in the Kingdom of God here and now. That's where I think some models fall short when viewed alone - they can't really give a sense of "What next?"