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

10 responses to “Blogging”

Lisa

18/01/2007

First, let me argue that Bishop Paul Marshall — who wrote that letter you cite — is not one of the great liberals of the Episcopal Church in the U.S. He is widely respected and regarded as a moderate. What he wrote in that letter is a frustration that many of us share: Why can the Archbishop meet privately with the most extreme conservatives of the Episcopal Church in the U.S., but consistently refuses to meet with our bishops assembled? I think that is a fair and valid question. I would urge folks to read Bishop Marshall’s whole letter and not just Ruth Gledhill’s biased “gloss” on it.

I agree the overall tenor of dialogue on U.S. Episcopalians’ blogs is worrisome. But I do not believe it’s the “liberals” that have gone out of bounds. If you want to read true venom, go to Virtue Online or StandFirm.

Reply
David

18/01/2007

It would be great to have a meet up and blether!

Reply
kelvin

18/01/2007

Thanks for the comments

Lisa – it was precisely standfirm and virtueonline that I had in mind.

You’re presuming that I don’t have sympathy for Paul Marshall. I have a great deal of sympathy for his position. I think he is angry. And I think he is right to be angry. I deliberately linked directly to his piece rather than Ruth Gledhill’s stuff about it, which people can find for themselves.

Perhaps if I had written “Those of us with strong liberal convictions…” my own position would have been clearer.

Reply
Tim

18/01/2007

Sociability good. (And arguably good for online interactions too – there are several notable folks whose adventures I read, whom I could happily put in a room together with a football and lock the door 😉

Reply
Frank

18/01/2007

There comes a time to toss convention and start communicating. I have a tea party in mind.

cheers

Reply
Raspberry Rabbit

18/01/2007

Kelvin, I think the whole blogging machine on the right in the U.S. has been set up for a good long while now. They’ve become proficient at it – the ‘blog storm’ if you like which sees itself quite self consciously as ‘generating’ public opinion for particular ends. The amount of support which ‘social conservatives’ will lend to religious conservatives as ‘deserving cousins’ allows those involved in the present TEC dispute access to an immense network.

I agree with the first comment about Bishop Marshall being middle of the road and not particularly liberal.

Reply
Raspberry Rabbit

18/01/2007

Oh and with respect to SEC bloggers. A meeting might be a good idea

Reply
Dennis

18/01/2007

Kevin: Just discovered your blog through MadPriest’s blog. I’ll add you to my regular visits.

It is exciting for me, an American far away from the Episcopal Church of Scotland, since I was confirmed at St Mary’s Glasgow back on Pentecost Sunday in 1988 – your church is where I became an Episcopalian – Fr John Turner was the chaplain at GU. Fr Malcolm was provost.

How exciting. Glad to find your blog.

Dennis

The world of political blogs in the US isn’t really that bad. The most important blog in the US for political progressives is DailyKos (www.dailykos.com) – I’m over there quite a lot – worth watching – it has a lot of voice and influence in the US Democratic party for supporting and raising money for underdog candidates last year who happened to win.

Reply
Dennis

18/01/2007

make that Kelvin, not Kevin. sorry about that!

Reply
Lisa

20/01/2007

I’ve corresponded privately with Kelvin about this, but let me make a few comments here in public.

I usually have to do my reading and writing on “things Anglican” after a full day at work. I regret to say that means I am sometimes too tired, and I miss the nuances. Which clearly happened in my public reply here. I apologize for that, and I apologize for making unwarranted assumptions about Kelvin’s stance.

One of the things I am realizing is that we in the Anglican Communion really do not understand enough about each other’s cultures and ethos. Over here in the U.S., we are very much hoping that the churches in the U.K. (and a few other provinces) will allow us to “work out our salvation with fear and trembling,” as St. Paul urged. I fear that our colonial past [of which most U.S. Episcopalians repent most sincerely] is working against us. We do not want to “export” our positions to others in the Communion; we don’t want to tell others they must do as we have done. We simply want the space in which to walk the path that seems right to us — and that path already has a 30-year history of prayerful discernment, both about the place of women in ordained ministry and about the place of gay men and lesbians in the Church and ordination.

Unfortunately, in the larger U.S. culture now, both “liberal” and “moderate” are anathema. A very scary conservativism (verging on — dare I use the term? — fascism) is taking hold.

When folks say the Episcopal Church is “bowing to popular culture,” they could not possibly be more wrong. “Popular culture” now in the U.S. is strongly capitalist, imperialist, nationalist, sexist, and anti-gay. Our church is “bucking” that tide, and we are paying a great price for what we truly believe to be a Spirit-led, prophetic witness.

It remains to be seen whether others in the Anglican Communion will trust us to continue in this time of discernment.

These are very, very hard times for all of us. And I hate how the positions are being polarized.

At our church’s General Convention [Do you call it a synod?], several people spoke about how the “diverse center” had spoken. I hope and pray that the “diverse center” will find their voices in Tanzania.

Reply