What is in Kelvin's Head?

Atonement theory and the Naughty Step

30/08/2013
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.
atonement, atonement theory, children, Jesus, naughty step, penal substitution

11 responses to “We drink from our own wells”

fr dougal

27/03/2011

Excellent! 1st class – wanna be Bishop of Edinburgh?

Reply
1. kelvin
  
  27/03/2011
  
  So far as I can ascertain, almost everyone wants to be Bishop of Edinburgh.
  
  Reply
Kimberly

27/03/2011

except you, I should think.

Reply
1. kelvin
  
  27/03/2011
  
  I love what I do. The job of being bishop of anywhere seems to me to be far more grim than most people realise.
  
  Reply
fr dougal

28/03/2011

Yes, I always think the Bishop’s theme song ought to be “naebuddy loves, awbuddy hates me, think Ah’m gauuny eat worms!”

Reply
Joe

30/03/2011

You took a chance that day Kelvin and it paid off for the good. As a gay man brought up in the RC Church, when I was 17 and very confused I thought that my church and God hated me because of my sexuality (obviously not my choice). I was actually told at that age by a priest in Glasgow that I would go to hell if I had sex with my then lover. I’ve seen many suicides over the years because of the fact that some people I knew could not reconcile their religion with their sexuality. Note I said religion not faith. The God I have a relationship with loves me as I am, whether human beings who claim to know better than me what he thinks of me condemn me does’nt bother me. I’ll let God judge not them.

Reply
Stew

30/03/2011

Fine line between drawing from one’s own well and ignoring all the other wells. Quite often I get the feeling that some people believe everything they need, all of the raw materials, are within and I can imagine that too much faith in one’s own well is the cause of much wayward preaching also. I hope that this lesson, which I am sure worked well in your case, would not become a maxim for general teaching and preaching,
without some safety clauses…. Have I misunderstood?

Reply
1. kelvin
  
  30/03/2011
  
  Well, Stew, perhaps you have misunderstood, I’m not sure.
  
  I wasn’t talking about what is necessary and sufficient for salvation, if that’s what you are worried about.
  
  Reply
ryan

30/03/2011

Great post!
Stew: Is the very existence of legitimate ” other wells” not, in and of itself, an argument against the dichotomies and simplistic certainties of the One True Well good old bad old days? I read much of the post as tracing the realisation that “neutral” readings are no such thing, and that the wells of teachers and human authorities are no more (or, of course, less) intrinsically real than our wells. The passage beginning ” I had drunk from” suggests someone adding to their knowledge of wells – not exchanging one set of wells for a single well, and therefore choosing a literally less well-informed world view ;-). Although even that would be a significant experience as other people’s experiences with their own wells might not be things they could usefully communicate to others. The blog post IMHO traces an expansion of (not just) knowledge, the opposite of diminuition from a wider to a smaller view. Although maintaining safety around wells is of course important 😉

Reply
Ruth

01/04/2011

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mabroccoli/5578370888/in/stream

When the sermon was over, he dived round the back, hoping to catch you as you left the laptop. I’m delighted that I’m still reaching a feline audience.

Reply
1. kelvin
  
  01/04/2011
  
  Thanks Ruth – very good.
  
  Reply