Does the solution determine the problem?
I am doing work on the atonement. Some new theologies (liberation, feminist, womanist, black) have opened new and interesting ground in thinking about the atonement. The question that is always in need of revisiting is, "What problem does God solve in the atonement?"
I think we have tended to see solutions (namely, in more popular understandings, satisfaction and penal substitution) and worked our way back to the problem. The thought gets worked out something like this:
1. Atonement models that involve violence, indicate a problem that had to be worked out with violence.
2. If the problem was something that needed a violent solution, then God must be inherently violent.
3. Since God is not inherently violent, then violence must not be part of the problem.
That's a really quick summary, and needs more nuancing, but it's the general idea. My question: Could a solution have elements that are not indicative of the problem? Could God's work in atonement have elements that do not indicate the nature of the problem? Or, Could an atonement with violence solve a problem that one would not necessarily associate its solution with violent means? (I.e., shame, alienation, powerlessness, etc.) I think yes.
I think we have tended to see solutions (namely, in more popular understandings, satisfaction and penal substitution) and worked our way back to the problem. The thought gets worked out something like this:
1. Atonement models that involve violence, indicate a problem that had to be worked out with violence.
2. If the problem was something that needed a violent solution, then God must be inherently violent.
3. Since God is not inherently violent, then violence must not be part of the problem.
That's a really quick summary, and needs more nuancing, but it's the general idea. My question: Could a solution have elements that are not indicative of the problem? Could God's work in atonement have elements that do not indicate the nature of the problem? Or, Could an atonement with violence solve a problem that one would not necessarily associate its solution with violent means? (I.e., shame, alienation, powerlessness, etc.) I think yes.
posted by Aaron Perry at
10:25 AM
8 Comments:
I would have to question the assumptions behind point 2. The statement as is only holds true if we believe God created all the “rules” that come into play as well as the current situation. I know he didn’t create the current situation and the rules part is more tricky and susceptible to endless semantics.
One of the issues I think must be considered is the possibility of other options. Were there other ways the atonement could have worked? Was there only one way to save us? Most of me says yes. However the prayer of Jesus in the garden (Mark 32-42) tends to make me think that maybe there were other possibilities. Jesus says that everything is possible for God and asks him to take away his cup and then he says not my will but yours Father. To me this implies that Jesus thought there were other options. Also he submits himself to the father’s will as opposed to saying I’ll do what has to be done. If there were other options (I don’t think it’s important or even possible to know what they would have been) then the solution itself (not just the desire to solve) says something about God. If this was the only way then all it says is God loves us. If God just did what has to be done it says he loves us enough to do something distasteful to Him. If there were options then the one He chose must tell us about Him
Why only one comment? Hmmmm. Starting to feel snarky. Must. . . deny . . . urge. . . to . . . write . . . about . . . pietistic . . . anti-intellectualism . . . .
Spock! . . . Bones! . . . Mr. Scott. . . Help me!
CG
"Or, Could an atonement with violence solve a problem that one would not necessarily associate its solution with violent means? (I.e., shame, alienation, powerlessness, etc.) I think yes."
Yes.
My two cents on the matter?
I think part of the problem with people who piously wring their hands about this issue is that they are attempting to "save" ethics from theology by reformulating theology. The problem with this is that it begins with the assumption that if God is violent, in any sense, this will underwright any violent means we come up with to bring about the kingdom/reign of God. But we know that we can't use violence to bring about the kingdom of God. Therefore these folks bend over backwards to rid God of any violent streaks. But I question the previous assumption. I say God IS violent, I say that God's dealings with us are violent, AND we can't use violence to bring about the kingdom of God.
As you know, for the people of God, all theology (talk of God) is talk of God's dealings with us, His people, across time and place. All good and trustworthy theology is born out of a right remembering of the story of God and His people, and consists in a right telling of the story of God and His people. We are skeptical of any theology which seeks to steal up into the heavens or consists in speculations flitting about in our minds. These are the paths to idolatry.
This story is a story of solemn and sacred relationships between God and His people: a story of the cutting of covenants. These covenants either explicitly contain, or presuppose, a self-maledictory oath taken by one of the parties. Promises are made, and the blessings and curses announced.
These covenants are inherently violent. Someone pledges their own death if their promise is not kept. Animals are slaughtered. Curses stipulated.
This is the story the holy scriptures give us, and it is these scriptures that Jesus says all point to him.
Now, in the Abraham covenant it is God who promises, (not the people, as at Sinai), and it is God who takes upon Himself a self-maledictory oath.
The (or, 'a') key NT question is, "who are the children of Abraham, who receives the blessings of the Abrahamic covenant?"...
...um, sorry to stop mid thought, but I've got to go, so for now it will have to be enough to say that it is impossible for the people of God to do good and proper and faithful theology without remembering the violent nature of the covenants with which God has cut with us.
Key questions:
If we know God by remembering how He acts, and His actions really reveal Him, is He really violent?
I say yes, God is really violent.
But I say His violence presupposes/includes His goodness and kindness. And His goodness presupposes/includes His violence and kindness. And His kindness presupposes/includes his goodness and violence. We must understand each in terms of the others.
Peace.
I think that the first problem with this is to assume that the atonement only takes place in the violent act of the cross. The atonement must be in the entire work of the the whole Christ-event that is the Incarnation. The idea that God became human in any way to bring humanity into divine goodness is what the atonement is all about. This is accomplished in the entire Incarnation, not just the cross.
Second, I would then argue that the cross is not so much the violent atonement as the natural outpouring of the Incarnation. I think that the Incarnation necessarily leads to the cross because of its challenge to humanity - humanity reacts violently, not God. The fact that God chooses to suffer the violence of humanity (hope that is not heretical) is not violent on God's part, but is more an act of enduring violence/suffering. In fact, the violence/suffering is then overcome/destroyed in the Resurrection. The violence and suffering that humanity tries to place on the One who is Perfect/God is overthrown/thwarted in the Resurrection, the final atoning factor in the Incarnation.
Yo, we're all set for you and Darren for Friday -- the team that will be here have lodging plans that don't include my living room or spare room. Ecrire moi.
hey ed: i think you're right. i was disappointed at mid-point stop, but ah well. check out hans boersma "violence, hospitality, and the cross."
nate: i haven't assumed that the atonement only takes place on the cross. in fact, i agree with you about the atonement is about bringing humanity into divine goodness, which i think was accomplished, politically as much as anything, in the ascension. the only assumption is that God is not passive in the cross, but is at work either behind the scenes or explicitly in it. (Jesus' feeling of abandonment by God is an experience of violence, i believe. could go into this at more detail.) asking why God would treat his Son this way, i believe, is best answered in terms of community and, as ed put it, who is the Son of Abraham. if it is the Law that makes us sons of Abraham, then we ought to be moving in the direction. on the cross, however, the Law is brought into direct contradiction with the Messianic claims of Christ: who who is hung on a tree is cursed. in the resurrection, however, it is the Son, not the law, that is vindicated. the Son is not cursed, but vindicated and the community forming ability of the Law is broken. from now on those who belong to God are in Christ.
Dani: Je t'ecrirai a la demain. (that may or may not have been painful.)
hmmm...i surely hope it matters in what i did. Jesus feels abandoned by God. he is not vindicated at this point and is surely feeling the harm God is actively allowing him to suffer--having brought and about to bring his Messiah into direct confrontation with the Law. only in pitting his annointed one directly against hte community shaping gift of the law can a new community, apart of the law, be established.
i am specifically talking about deut 21:23. Jesus is the fulfillment of the Law. It is not the Law that is bad; it is its powerlessness that must be overcome. The confrontation that happens is only created by those who wish to cling and impose Jewish rites on others. Interpreting the cross as a curse, however, Paul says that Jesus becomes this curse for us (Gal. 3:13). By becoming this curse, he opens those who can be sons of Abraham to include the Gentiles. Those who are sons of Abraham are sons according to the promise, not according to the Law. This is how Paul gets around double-speak about the Law: He is blameless before it, but it doesn't make him righteous; it is holy, just, and good, but brings death and puts those under it under a curse. I suppose the best analogy I can come up with otoh is of a life raft. If one clings to a life raft while at the side of a boat, then the raft becomes the death of the person. without the boat, however, it is good. and with the boat, the raft becomes something to be confronted.
God's annointed one suffering a public, political, and humiliating death is cursed according to Deut. 21:23. But the resurrection vindicates the Son and relativizes the Law.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home