"The first and chief article is this, that Jesus Christ, our God and Lord, 'was put to death for our trespasses and raised again for our justification' (Romans 4: 25). He alone is 'the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world' (John 1: 29). 'God has laid upon him the iniquities of us all' (Isaiah 53:6). Moreover, 'all have sinned' and 'they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, by his blood" (Romans 3: 23-25). Smalcald Articles, Part II, Article I (Christ and Faith).
"(M)oreover, he suffered, died and was buried that he might make satisfaction for me and pay what I owed, not with silver and gold but with his own precious blood. All this in order to become my Lord. For he did none of these things for himself, nor had he any need of them." Large Catechism, Apostles' Creed, Second Article.
"The content of the Gospel is this, that the Son of God, Christ our Lord, himself assumed and bore the curse of the law and expiated and paid for all our sins, that through him alone we re-enter the good graces of God, obtain forgiveness of sins through faith, are freed from death and all the punishments of sin, and are saved eternally." Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, Article V. Law and Gospel.
This entry took awhile to put together. I have recently finished Dr. Vitor Westhelle's excellent and deeply challenging book "The Scandalous God." I have also researched atonement theory in varioius resources. Having begun, as promised, with quotes from The Lutheran Confessions, I continue with a quote that "started it all" for me in terms of feeling the need to speak out.
"I don't have any idea why Jesus died, but it certainly was not to forgive our sins."
That was said to me some years ago by an ordained and serving ELCA pastor. It took me totally by surprise. But I have heard the idea if not the words repeated over the past years in leadership meetings throughout the ELCA. We don't "like" the idea of substitutionary atonement. It seems "barbaric."
A few points. First, the measure of truth for a Christian in general and an ELCA pastor in particular is not actually what I "like." Most of you know that I am a disciple of the writings of C. S. Lewis. He did a talk to Anglican Clergy in 1945 called "Christian Apologetics" in which he makes this point forcefully. He says that any priest (pastor) who is unable to continue in the orthodox teaching of the Christian Faith needs to find a different profession. Honesty demands it.
But C. S. Lewis in Mere Christianity makes a finer point that is very helpful in this discussion. He distinguishes between the "what" and the "how" of atonement. That Jesus died for our sins is essential to the Christian Faith. Dietrich Bonhoeffer in "Life Together" wrote, "The Christian Faith is forgiveness of sins; nothing more and nothing less." But as to HOW this happens, how it applies to us, there are several theories - theories of atonement. Lewis pointed out that believing (or rejecting) any one particular theory of atonement is not Mere Christianity. THAT Jesus died for our sins is essential.
"Substitutionary atonement" is essentially the idea that Jesus died "for" us, "in our place." It includes "sacrificed for our sins." I was surprised to hear from a DVD presentation of Dr. Tickle of "Emergence" that "Atonement does not appear in the New Testament." Knowing the New Testament as I do, that seemed strange (as in wrong) to me. So I checked as carefully as I could, given concessions to the shortness of life (as my Constitutional Law professor used to say). What appears to me is that the Hebrew word kaphar which is used in Leviticus for "atonement" is translated in the Greek Old Testament, The Septuigint" using a word not actually found in the New Testament Greek. From this someone fluent in Ancient Hebrew and Greek (which I certainly am not) could argue that atonement does not appear in the New Testament. However, there are two other Greek words that are translated "atonement" that are used in Romans 5: 11 (also translated "reconciliation") and a different word in Romans 3: 25 and I John 2:2, and 4: 10 (also translated "propitiation"). So the IDEA or Doctrine of Atonement is certainly present in the New Testament. Synonyms are not unusual in either the Old or New Testament. And for substitutionary atonement as blood sacrifice, check out Hebrews 9 and 10.
A pastor said recently that when a child asks "Why did Jesus die on the cross?" what can you answer?
Jesus died to forgive my sins. And yours.
So where does all this controversy come from? I can only hope that it is a case of "throwing the baby out with the bathwater." If a pastor can't accept a particular theory of atonement, it is a pretty small step to get from there to rejecting atonement altogether, and from there to denying that Jesus died for our sins. But I suspect that something else may lay behind this. Perhaps, just perhaps, in our headlong rush to be "ecumenical" not just within denominations as is proper, but outside the orthodox Christian Faith, there is a temptation to minimize what I have called "the exclusivity and the universality of the Christ event." (Jesus is the only way to heaven, but He is the way to heaven for everyone.) We don't want to distinguish Christianity from other world religions (although it is distinct). So we minimize that which sets Christianity apart. What is the Gospel in light of this? What is evangelism (good news sharing) in light of this?
"The saying is sure and worthy of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners." I Timothy 1: 15.
Amen!
ReplyDelete