The Taser's Edge


Atonement vs. Reconciliation

 

In these particular American pop Christian, neo-Calvinistic times, a whole lot of emphasis is put on which theory of atonement you believe in.  Which is ridiculous, not because the atonement is ridiculous, but because there is no single ‘orthodox’ theory of atonement found in the history of the church. 

And yet, there are guidelines, and certain theories of atonement are heresy.  For instance, these lyrics Pat Sczebel’s 2003 “Jesus, Thank You” (which our church sang this morning): 

The mystery of the cross I cannot comprehend
The agonies of Calvary
You the perfect Holy One, crushed Your Son
Who drank the bitter cup reserved for me

Your blood has washed away my sin
Jesus, thank You
The Father’s wrath completely satisfied
Jesus, thank You
Once Your enemy, now seated at Your table
Jesus, thank You

By Your perfect sacrifice I’ve been brought near
Your enemy You’ve made Your friend
Pouring out the riches of Your glorious grace
Your mercy and Your kindness know no end

Lover of my soul
I want to live for You

“You, the perfect Holy One, crushed Your Son” at the end of this first verse, and then “The Father’s wrath completely satisfied” in the chorus.  I can only assume Sczebel was trying to channel St. Anselm, whose theory of atonement likened God to a feudal Lord whom we have dishonored by sinning against and who demands satisfaction.  The metaphor was an unfortunate one, as it didn’t really account for the many differences (an understatement) between medieval feudalism and the household of God. 

But Sczebel’s lyric is far more than unfortunate.  It portrays a raging, bloodthirsty God whose lust for human blood can only be sated by the blood of his own son-made-flesh, Jesus.  And just killing Jesus isn’t enough; God has to really get his wrath worked out.  If the cross is God’s killing of Jesus as Sczebel’s song portrays, then surely the torture Jesus suffers before the cross is also God’s torture.

This totally misses the grammar of ‘satisfaction’, which in the phrase, ‘satisfaction theory of atonement’ does not refer to the sating of God’s appetite for blood (leaving God ready to take a nice nap after the meal of his one and only son, who took on flesh just so that he would taste better). 

Sczebel hasn’t channeled Anselm; he’s channeled Molech, the god worshipped in the Ancient Near East through child sacrifice.  I can’t decide which is worse, to turn the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob into Molech, or to waste a really terrific melody doing it. 

Sounds much better than "God Finally Satisfied After Devouring His Own Son; Christian Worshippers Overjoyed and Sing About It"

 

Any theory of atonement is going to have real problems when it fails to recognize that ‘Atonement’ is a synonym for ‘Reconciliation,’ and that reconciliation means restoring relationship and bringing unity to damaged (or destroyed) relationship.Any theory of atonement which throws away the whole purpose of reconciliation/atonement–drawing us into union (or “at-one-ment”, which is atonement’s literal meaning not just a catchy mnemonic device) with God–in favor of abstract and/or culture-bound ideas of justice accomplished by God’s violent revenge against us, is not the atonement for which the Word became flesh, lived, died, and rose among us and for us. 

Finally, even if we remain committed to the idea of satisfaction, as I think we should (because, yes, we have badly breached our relationship with God, and something huge and beyond human power needs to be done to make things right), it can’t be the same satisfaction which gentlemen want when their feelings are hurt.  And it can’t be resolved in the same way as those pouty and honor-bound folks resolve their disputes, no matter how catchy the tune: 


1 Comment so far
Leave a comment

I think the language of crushing comes from Isa 53:5, 10. What’s missing in the song, but present in Isa, is the way God’s will “to crush him” is God’s will to let his servant be “esteemed” by us as “smitten by God.” In other words, in the song, the “crushing” of the Son is the divine response to our sin, whereas in Isa. the “crushing” also reveals our sin (our will to crush, as it were, or in the language of Isa., our “oppression and judgment” and murder of the servant). In Isa., this means that God’s will to crush the Servant for our iniquity is not a divine substitution for private, moral guilt but the divine judgment against our entire cultural logics that lead us to exclude and crush God’s servant (hence, there is a surprising “But” or “yet”–we intended it for harm, yet–surprise–God willed it, and willed it for our benefit).

Comment by Tim McGee




Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s



%d bloggers like this: