On Atonement Part 1.5, Some Metanarrative

After I posted my last entry, some great comments have been made both here on blogger and on facebook have led me to make an intermediate post and think about where this is going. I'll frame this as a few comically stated questions that I feel I should be directed towards, and subsequently answered by, me.

Why did you focus on penal substitution when you titled the post "on atonement"? Did you think that was the only theory there was till you came along? What's your problem anyway?

I titled the series "On Atonement" but then the first post only addressed one particular theory that I happen to have some problems with. Well, my intention is to go into the other theories I am aware of inasmuch as I am aware of them in the next post. Maybe the series will take a little longer than I though.

So why did I focus on penal substitution? First of all, penal substitution was my first understanding of atonement, even though I couldn't articulate it. Therefore, inasmuch as this set of articles will be a narration of my own development, it has to start there.

Another reason is that it seems to be the theory most often articulated by the average theologically conservative Christian, and also by those outside the Christian tradition. Most critiques of Christianity that I've read seem to take a penal substitutionary understanding of atonement for granted, and then use some of the same critiques I offered as a critiques against Christianity altogether.

Against all this, I'd like to point out I'm not innovating here. There are plenty of other ways of understanding atonement throughout the Christian tradition, and is by no means the oldest. I think its safe to say, with C.S. Lewis, that all that's required by the title Christian is what I said at the beginning of the last post: that Jesus was uniquely the Son of God, that He lived without sin, and that His death and resurrection somehow attain salvation for us if we place our faith in them. That is the doctrine of atonement. What I am discussing here is the question of how and why that is so, answers to which are called theories of atonement.

Didn't you forget the point that sparked this whole topic in your mind awhile back and then feel silly for leaving it out, especially when you'd been writing and talking about it not a day before you wrote the post? What's your problem?

The last thing I wanted to put in this intermediate article is for me the most important criticism of penal substitution as a stand alone theory. If we only think in terms of substitution, or even satisfaction (more on that later) I think it is hard to deal with all the biblical language about us participating in Christ's deal and resurrection. Yes He was in our place, but then we also join Him in His place. And as Paul suggests, we get there by somehow the same route. "If we were buried with Him we will also rise with Him."

I think the idea of participation is a really, really important one, and I think its important that it be tied directly to our understanding of what happened at the cross, so we can know what we're participating in. From the standpoint of substitution, it seems like you have to say that somehow our sin is up there with Jesus on the cross, and then His righteousness is down here with us. But I think the text suggest a bit more by our participation in the life and death of Christ than just the execution of our sinful natures. I think perhaps the text calls for participation by faith in His victory over sin and death, His submission and obedience to God which come to their fullest point in His death and resurrection.

So maybe that gives some more hints as to where I'm going with this. Anyway I hope this clarifies a bit. In Part II I'll try to discuss the different theories I know of all together, and try to articulate finally what sort of thing I believe and why. There have been a number of other things said that I'm still thinking about that will probably show up in future posts. Alright, last question!

Why do academics use only certain prepositions (like "on" and "towards" and "against") and not others (like "about" or "under")? Don't they know English? What's they're problem?

This is a toughie. See, academics need jargon that no one else can understand, otherwise anyone can just jump in and see they're not really doing anything. In disciplines like science and engineering, this is easy. They have a bunch of words like hadrons and tribology and quantum chromodynamics that no one else knows. But in disciplines like theology or english, they have to mystify words that everyone already knows. Sometimes this can be done by just saying in Latin, German, or French. Other times, they just use the words in ways that clearly suggest some higher meaning. Everyone plays along even if they don't know what's going on.

It turns out this comes into play even with prepositions. No one knows why academics use "on" instead of "about" or "towards" and not "at", or "moving" instead of "going" but they do know if you wrote a paper with the title About a Thomist Reading of Hegel: Goin' Medeival on the Dialectic no one would read it. Ok fine, no one would read that even if it it didn't start with "about."

But let's take a real example: there's a book called Toward a Theology of Nature: Essays on Science and Faith. Imagine if it was Pointed at a Theology about Nature: Essays about Science plus Faith. No one would publish that. Imagine Pointed at a Theology about Nature: Essays that had happened to be about Science plus also about Faith too. Now there's a thesis title you could take to the bank!