One of the parents in the congregation recently was saying how hard it is to answer good questions from children about why Jesus came and had resorted to trying to explain it in terms of the Naughty Step.
I thought it might be helpful to lay out some of the main theories of the Atonement thus:
- Ransom theory – our parents were so naughty that they deserve the naughty step and have passed their naughtiness onto us. Justice requires that someone has to go to the naughty step to pay for this and God tricked the devil into seeing Jesus on the naughty step as sufficient payment for this.
- Christus victor theory – Jesus has gloriously broken down the powers and dominions of naughtiness and only has to glance at the naughty-step for his holiness to turn it in to dust. Nothing can withstand his might and power.
- Moral influence theory – Jesus came to teach us how to be so good that we would never be sent to the naughty step.
- Penal substitution theory – God simply won’t forgive anyone until He is satisfied that the naughty step punishment has been fulfilled in full. Fortunately, Jesus comes along and takes on that naughtiness for himself, freely offering to pay the debt of naughtiness to God the Father. We need urgently to recognise this offer and accept it.
- Incarnation theory – the amazing thing is that Jesus comes and sits on the naughty step with us, sharing our frailty and sharing our sorrows.
There are other possibilities, but those should keep you going for a bit.
Now, all these things have been believed by Christians. However, it doesn’t make much sense to claim that you believe them all at once. Notwithstanding that, I’d say that they all move me at one time or another, even though I tend towards one of them as my dominant way of understanding why Jesus came. We encounter all of these theories in our hymns, if not elsewhere.
That’s the way atonement theory works for me.
I well remember Prof. Jim Whyte’s formulation of the theory as being that on the cross ‘Evil could do no more than this, and good could do no more, and good has won.
Since I do not believe in preaching at evensong, and yet must, I simply read this out to them tonight (with due credit) an then invited them to play a little game. In a fortnight’s time, I’m awarding prizes for the most amusing list of naughty-atonement hymns. They seemed to like the idea.
The sad part about all these conceptualizations is the way all accept as a given an either/or description of the character of human life. I do not find that taking our naughtiness as a basic condition (which implies that we are either naughty or not) is a helpful account of the way we experience our lives. At the heart of such a model is the idea that we used to be good, but we became naughty. But clearly there was no point in human history at which people were significantly better than they are now.
As an American, I’m not familiar with the term “naughty step,” but assume that it has the same purpose as being “sent to your room,” or being given an enforced “time out.” I’m reminded of a friend who attended an evangelical “Bible Church,” who would frequently ask me if I believed that I had been saved by the blood of Christ. I would reply that, yes, I did, but not in the way she meant.
Kimberly,
I love your action and will be interested in the response in two weeks time.
“Incarnation theory – the amazing thing is that Jesus comes and sits on the naughty step with us, sharing our frailty and sharing our sorrows.”
Despite the fact that he hasn’t been naughty, and that our frailty is the cause of our being on the naughty step and our sorrows are the judgement by God (including Jesus) which is the naughty step?
And just run it past me again – how does this ‘make one’ our relationship with the Father-Son-Holy-Spirit-God?
Lost me a bit there, I’m afraid.
And yet the funny thing is, John, for lots of people that just instinctively makes sense.
And even odder, is that the incarnation made it into the Nicene Creed whilst substitutionary atonement, for example, didn’t.
If Jesus is sitting beside you, how is your relationship with God not whole?
This formulation answers many standard theological points – the idea of God making the first move, it being God’s work not ours, acceptance in faith, the removal of guilt – without the tired jargon.
And we like being amazed 🙂
Tim, for how long do we stay on God’s naughty step, when are we let off it and why? (3 questions, I know, but I’d be interested in the answers you might give.)
Well, we’re at risk of straining the bounds of the metaphor, but consider: it’s a naughty-step because you make it so in sitting guiltily upon it; others may consider it one amongst many ordinary steps.
So it’s really a ‘guilt trip’ step that I don’t need to be on at all. What made me go there in the first place? Why did I feel guilty? Hmm.
I agree that realising that Jesus is with me on the naughty step is much more at-one(ing) than the punishment metaphors. It makes me one with the Trinity because unlike Peter, Judas and indeed myself…Jesus continues to be God with us even when we dessert, fail, sin.
Eric Mascall, the very conservative theologian makes the point in his book ‘CorpusChristi’ that sacrifice is not, in the first place, about shedding blood or punishment, ….but about “making holy”. Atonement is about making us holy, as God wants us, we can’t do it, haven’t done it….but Jesus has
Here’s a radical understanding of the atonement: Christ’s crucifixion was the natural consequence of attempting to lead an outward-looking life of generosity and self-giving, and opposing the imperial-religious complex of first century Palestine. The cross wasn’t an instrument in some cosmic meta-narrative of salvation, it was an instrument of political execution. And I’m afraid that hurling accusations of heresy around just won’t wash in the modern world: it comes across as controlling and childish, refusing to allow people to think for themselves and suggesting the church somehow has the right to decide which avenues of theological exploration are permitted.
Of course, NO particular theory of atonement is stated in the Creeds (though “for us and for our salvation” implies atonement taking place). If there were, this conversation would be unnecessary. But if I were talking to an inquisitive child, I can imagine the following questions coming up about the incarnational theory (pop your answers in the space provided):
CHILD: Mummy, who makes us go and sit on the naughty step when God thinks we’ve been bad?
MUMMY:
CHILD: And how long do we have to stay on the naughty step?
MUMMY:
CHILD: Why does Jesus sit on the naughty step — has he been naughty?
MUMMY: Yes. (Loud ‘Heresy’ buzzer.)
MUMMY:
CHILD: When is Jesus allowed to get off the naughty step?
MUMMY:
CHILD: So does Jesus stay on the naughty step? Is he still there? Is he ever going to be allowed off it?
MUMMY:
CHILD: When we die, will we still have to sit on the naughty step?
MUMMY:
CHILD: Jesus died, didn’t he, mummy? Why does he still have to sit on the naughty step? Was it because he came to life again?
MUMMY:
CHILD: Am I on God’s naughty step now?
MUMMY:
CHILD: Is that because I haven’t really been naughty?
MUMMY:
CHILD: But if I’ve really been naughty, shouldn’t I be on the naughty step?
MUMMY: Look, why don’t you ask Daddy?
(Later)
DADDY: Look, it’s like this. Yes, you’ve been naughty, and God sends you to the naughty step, because that’s what happens to naughty people. And if you just got up after a little while and went to play, you’d only be naughty again and get sent back, wouldn’t you? But Jesus is special – he made all the boys and girls in the world, and when they are naughty, he says to himself and to His Daddy, look if we don’t do something, they’ll be on the naughty step FOREVER, so why don’t I go and sit on the naughty step for all of them? After all, I made them AND I MADE TIME, so it will be like forever, even though I don’t have to stay forever.
So next time you’re naughty, tell Jesus you’re sorry, thank him and his Father that they came up with this idea, and then go off and play like they would want you to.
CHILD: Wow, Dad, that’s amazing! Isn’t God great?
(Or something like that … 😉 )
CHILD: But Daddy, why do I have to say sorry to Jesus for it to work? Do you mean Jesus won’t sit here in my place if I won’t, even though he could? That’s not a very nice kind of Jesus.
Kelvin, supposing a parent puts its child on the naughty step. Would a ‘sorry’ not be appropriate? It is part of a right relationship – or what the Bible calls dikaiosune. Yes?
I think sorry is a great thing.
But it doesn’t make substitutionary atonement make any sense to me.
It’s part of faith which, from our side, is that by which we are saved. It would apply to any to any theory of the atonement. That it is part of the relationship does not undermine PSA.
Yes, I know all about the theory. I just don’t believe it to be adequate.
(Which is not the same as not believing it to be true).
Lots of Christians don’t. Some don’t understand it either – however, having been a a good evangelical for all those years I understand it pretty well. Indeed I used to teach it to others and go around thinking that it was essential.
And now I don’t.
Kelvin, given your reply, why did you ask? I actually took time to write that.
Badly phrased rhetorical question.
Tell you what, Kelvin, you answer the other questions I posed and I won’t be so grouchy about answering yours, but I’d suggest (to you, not the child, obviously), “Because in Jesus we are children of Abraham, who believed God when the gospel was preached to him, and it was reckoned to him as a right relationship with God”. (Perhaps it might be suitable for the teenage child.)
Kelvin – You suggested: “CHILD: But Daddy, why do I have to say sorry to Jesus for it to work? Do you mean Jesus won’t sit here in my place if I won’t, even though he could? That’s not a very nice kind of Jesus.”
This is like the friend of mine used to ask if he was going to meet Pol Pot and Hitler in heaven. To which the answer is not unless they repented.
To which another answer is that in our short-sighted inconsistency we don’t begin to grok the full extent of God’s forgiveness; we don’t know whether there’s an afterlife or not, and heaven is not just a feature of any putative afterlife but a state around us here & now to be enjoyed when we can identify it, so given that Hitler and Pol Pot are not here and now, it’s a bit of a moot point.
Thanks Tim: the Bible doesn’t actually say much about “heaven” but there is a lot about being with Jesus and coming to the Father. I think my friend’s Hitler/Pol Pot question is about whether those who do wrong in God’s sight but are unrepentant will be with Him, and whether God forgives the repentant Hitler/Pol Pot.
Spot on, John. In every way.
*yawns*
I’m intrigued by your protestations of boredom that someone is impressed by a comment that seeks to engage you seriously on a topic you brought up in the OP!
If you don’t want people to discuss these things with you, then why write about them in a public forum? Unless, of course, there’s actually really no interest in dialogue.
David, I brought up some different theories of atonement. What I didn’t do is begin an argument about which theory is biggest, best or right. Indeed, I said fairly clearly at the beginning that thinking about the atonement that way wasn’t for me.
And in answer to John Richardson’s earlier question about why I might single out substitutionary atonement, it is because no-one ever advocates any of the other views in the same way with the same need to convert people.
And it gets boring fast.
One gets weary of people thinking that if they explain it just one more time and in just the right way I will suddenly understand it and believe it.
Trust me. I understand it.
so then 2 thoughts:
1 John wasn’t explaining anything to you – he was asking you how your own model works.
2 Why yourself write a post explaining atonement theory is the whole thing is so wearisome?
Looking at different theories of atonement is exciting, not boring.
People trying to explain why one of them is right or trying to explain why one and only one them works (and it is only ever one of them) – not so exciting.
Thanks John, that’s really helpful – the only answer that makes sense of the Bible I read, the life I lead, the news I watch, the Jesus I know, the hope I have, the funeral of a Christian lady I’ve just been to…
Are you interested in the fact that other Christians don’t find it makes any sense of the Bible we read, the news we watch, the Jesus we know, the hope we have and the funerals of Christian ladies we know? Moreover, that other Christians find different ways of making sense of these things?
Interested…? Mmmmm… More puzzled really.