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

36 responses to “Inclusive Language and Politeness”

John Prescott

29/11/2017

I am loving the breath, depth, and civility of this conversation. At risk of muddying the waters, I would like to add another element to this discussion, namely language changes to choral works sung by a choir. As a progressive Episcopalian I want to do everything possible to make the liturgy inclusive. As a musicologist by profession, I also care about the integrity of musical works from other historical periods. Composers like Byrd and Purcell took exquisite care in the setting of particular words to music. Hymn tunes and texts, on the other hand, are often interchangeable and so, in my opinion we can be much freer in altering them. A solution may be for choirs to perform works from earlier times with their original words but also make a point of including new works with much more inclusive language. This is one possibility and I would welcome any other thoughts.

Reply
Meg Rosenfeld

30/11/2017

John, your suggestion is eminently sensible and would enable us both to enjoy and appreciate the older musical works (whether as singers or listeners), and to rejoice in the inclusiveness of new or perhaps intelligently altered newer pieces (e.g. hymns and/or modern anthems.) Actually, I think that’s basically what we do, or strive to do at All Saints; would you agree?

Reply
Ross E. Herman

01/12/2017

As an historian, much of this takes me back to the Puritanism of the seventeenth century that wreaked havoc on the traditional ways of worship and the beautiful art that so many held dear, things which our many of our Continental cousins still have and cherish. One of the three legs of Anglicanism is tradition and the respect we hold for those who came before from whom we inherited our faith and worship. Changing poems such as Bunyan’s impose our own values on an ancestor, debasing his genius and his faith, saying that he was somehow not enlightened enough to anticipate how mores would change. Part of the church’s mission is to celebrate the wonders of Creation, including the artistic contributions of the faithful.

This issue is very similar to the argument in America over the censorship of Mark Twain’s seminal novel, Huckleberry Finn, which, as an honest reflection of his time, includes quite a number of instances of the use of the ‘n-word’. As it has been taught in American schools for decades, many have proposed, and even published versions which replace this with an alternative. This is wrongheaded on many counts, but it most importantly insults readers by presuming they are not intelligent enough to incorporate the historical context of the book into their comprehension of it; this also applies to the drive to puritanically whitewash any reference to gender, including the wholesale abandonment of traditions and practices that bring comfort to many.

As an institution which holds teaching the Gospel as one of its fundamental missions, the church is perfectly well-equipped to remind or teach people of the context of things which may possibly offend, even using it as an opportunity to teach the importance of critically thinking about our world. The approach advocated here is an abdication of the church’s responsibility to preach the truth for the sake of making everyone, including itself, feel righteous and insulated from the iniquities of mankind. (NB: I seriously doubt Neil Armstrong was thinking that the many women at Playtex who worked to make his spacesuit were somehow excluded from the ‘big leap for mankind’; or maybe I’m wrong and he was actually a horrible bigot whose words should be scrubbed from history.)

Reply
1. Kelvin
  
  01/12/2017
  
  And yet, I’m guessing you’d not be comfortable with a church using a hymn in public worship with the n-word in it. Am I right?
  
  Reply
  1. Ross E. Herman
    
    01/12/2017
    
    Such an argument only begs the question of whether such a thing even exists; worship exists within reality, and hypotheticals can only go so far in addressing the needs of the faithful. Besides, it is an invocation of the fallacious warning against slippery slopes.
    
    Reply
    1. Kelvin
      
      01/12/2017
      
      Not really. We tend to speak of Spirituals these days in our worship rather than the way in which people used to refer to them.
      
      Reply
Ross E. Herman

01/12/2017

Also, your decision to exclude critical commentary is incredibly hypocritical, blatantly going against the discursive nature of the Anglicanism that has enabled you as a priest to speak out in the first place. I understand the just desire to discourage hateful words, but criticism is not inherently hateful or derogatory. Please reconsider your policy.

Reply
1. Kelvin
  
  01/12/2017
  
  er, I published your critical commentary, didn’t I?
  
  Reply
  1. Meg Rosenfeld
    
    01/12/2017
    
    You did indeed! 😎
    
    Reply
Tony Wesley

02/12/2017

At Trinity Cathedral in Cleveland, OH, USA, our beloved canon has recently introduced the term “kindred” to use instead of “brothers and sisters” precisely to address our non binary members and visitors. It seems to have taken hold more and more in our weekly newsletters, group emails, etc. I still pause when I use it and that is a valuable pause as it makes me aware again of the vastness of creation.

Reply
Mikhail Ramendik

03/12/2017

Suggestion, good Reverend:

==
Dear Lord and Father of our kind,
Forgive our foolish ways!
Reclothe us in our rightful mind,
In purer lives Thy service find,
In deeper reverence, praise.
==

I see a possible problem here with “our kind” being read as Christians as opposed to humans, but not sure if it is a real danger.

Reply
Ryan S.

03/12/2017

Dear Kelvin,

Such a wonderful reflection on inclusive language in our worship.

I have long cherished “Dear Lord and Father of mankind”—you could even say it’s my favorite hymn—and in my search for something to sing as a solo one day, I found several versions of it adapted for inclusive language. I ultimately decided I preferred “Dear God who loves all humankind,” though I also thought “Dear God, compassionate and kind” would’ve had a lovely sound to it. Someday, I hope that perhaps we shall all move away from referring to God with an implicit gender.

Do keep up the good work. You’re doing fabulously.

Joyfully,
Ryan

Reply