because sometimes i wonder if people don't understand that concept. i'm allowed to say that i don't agree with the penal substitutionary atonement theory. no, i don't believe that the main message of the cross is the punishment of sins. and i don't have to try to justify myself to people i know won't listen to me. i won't apologize for looking at the world through the eyes of another person or for letting that affect my theology. it's not just because i "don't like" the theology of penal substitution. it's not because i'm trying to be a rebel. it's not even because i like a good argument. it's because i think of a teenage girl who has been physically and emotionally abused her whole life. i think of a son who is beaten by his mother every time she gets a little drunk. how can i talk about the love of a god who victimized his son? i know there is more to it than that, but it is still directly related.
and i also think richard dawkins has it right in a sense when he says "atonement, the central doctrine of christianity, is vicious, sadomasochistic, and repellent." and someone says that i can't throw out a theory of atonement because of a single hypothetical situation.
yes, i fucking can.
because as much as the study of theology is about dialog and interaction and delving into the writings of those who have come before (ad fontes), it is also a very personal journey. so, i sure as hell can disagree with penal substitution, and i can do it on the basis of a hypothetical person who exists in real life in the form of around 2,000 children abused sexually or physically every day.
So what theory of atonement do i think i prefer? i have no idea. why? because i am still struggling with this concept of atonement. i really don't necessarily think that the most important message of the cross is the atonement of sins. i'm working through that one. so i guess that i would maybe be most inclined to agree with an exemplary theory of atonement, that the cross was a demonstration. that still doesn't help me reconcile the violence involved, but again, i'm working on it.
and i also think richard dawkins has it right in a sense when he says "atonement, the central doctrine of christianity, is vicious, sadomasochistic, and repellent." and someone says that i can't throw out a theory of atonement because of a single hypothetical situation.
yes, i fucking can.
because as much as the study of theology is about dialog and interaction and delving into the writings of those who have come before (ad fontes), it is also a very personal journey. so, i sure as hell can disagree with penal substitution, and i can do it on the basis of a hypothetical person who exists in real life in the form of around 2,000 children abused sexually or physically every day.
So what theory of atonement do i think i prefer? i have no idea. why? because i am still struggling with this concept of atonement. i really don't necessarily think that the most important message of the cross is the atonement of sins. i'm working through that one. so i guess that i would maybe be most inclined to agree with an exemplary theory of atonement, that the cross was a demonstration. that still doesn't help me reconcile the violence involved, but again, i'm working on it.
4 comments:
Yeah, I agree with you on the whole Penal Substition theory of atonement. I think it cast God's nature into some serious questions. I personally lean towards the Christus Victor, but I definitely don't think the atonement is really just one theory. I think it's probably a lot of different things in one, so I agree with the exemplary theory as well, cause I do think it's meant to be an example of ultimate submission to God's will.
Anywho, good post, and I like your opinion.
Hey Dan. This is Josh back in Hoover. I don't want to get into a discussion about why penal substitutionary atonement is correct or incorrect. But I will say that your assessment of your own approach to doctrine itself is burdensome to say the least. If those who engage in doctrinal and theological study could hypothetically explain away any doctrine based off of any experience, we would be left with nothing. The analogy you cited breaks down quickly not because of the content in relation to the topic you are discussing, but because you are discussing two completely separate topics while trying to make it one. An abusive mother or father today is a product of the affects of sin and the fallen world in which we live in. This is by no means an excuse for such an example. However, Jesus, in his actions of actually becoming the curse of sin for our atonement, did so not as an effect of sin, but to eliminate the death that sin produces. Thus, two different things at work here.
I am not here to convince you one way or another on this particular topic, although we could talk at length about it another time. My primary purpose for writing is to pick your brain about your approach to doctrine itself in the way you wrote about it in your post. I greatly care for you Dan and have watched you come a great way in your faith over the years. So please trust me when I tell you that this response is a response of love, but I felt as though this issue must be addressed.
first of all, thanks for your input! it is good to hear from you, and equally as good to read your opinion. however, i stand by everything i wrote. i think that the exploration of theology is just that: an exploration. additionally, theories of atonement are loose and compiled from different perspectives, verses, and stances in the realm of christian doctrine. my deciding to disagree with one based on looking through the eyes of someone is, i feel, completely justified.
i do not believe that abusive parents (or even an abusive culture) are emulating the actions performed against christ, but i do think that someone in that situation has a difficult time constructing their faith identity when they view the atonement as penal substitutionary in nature.
as to my approach to doctrine, it is very fluid, and i allow my mind and heart to work simultaneously. there is no definitive christian doctrine because so many camps have contributed to and splintered from the original message of christ (i mean the patristic era alone is rife with conflict over the nature of christ himself). not to say that theology or doctrine are relative. it's just that i do think they are personal, dialogical, embedded, and articulated. and because i believe all of those things, i believe it is fine to say that i don't agree with penal substitution on the hypothetical consideration of an abused child.
thanks again for your input!
Hey Dan. Josh again. In light of this discussion I have a couple of questions I am curious to ask you. If in fact there is "no definitive Christian doctrine" then how do you view the authority of scripture, the work of the Holy Spirit to preserve scripture and its doctrine (even through the generations of theologians who have given their time, effort, and for some even their lives for doctrine), and where systematics has its place in your theological approach?
Thanks for the discussion.
Post a Comment