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

25 responses to “New Statement from College of Bishops”

Dennis

10/12/2014

If you want a good resource for changing things start with Moyer’s Movement Action Plan. It was the bible for social change training movements for twenty years in the US for local and organizational politics and informed some of the organizing.
https://www.indybay.org/olduploads/movement_action_plan.pdf

You might also look at the Midwest Academy’s Manual for Social Change
http://www.midwestacademy.com/manual/

And the granddaddy of them all: Saul Alinksy’s Rules for Radicals (1971) http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0679721134

and while you are waiting for it to arrive, start an invitation only discussion list going for those in your church who support change and organize those training sessions in more than one diocese.

Reply
Daniel Lamont

10/12/2014

Dennis makes helpful and pertinent suggestions. It may be inappropriate as an Anglican living in England (albeit hoping to move to Edinburgh when he sells his house) to ask if there is anything we can do anything now such as writing to bishops.

Reply
1. Kelvin
  
  10/12/2014
  
  Writing letters can do much good.
  
  Reply
Steven

11/12/2014

I am an outsider in two senses on this. Firstly, I don’t live in Scotland and am not Scottish. I am not a member of the SEC. Secondly, my faith (such as it is) varies between committed humanism to Quakerism (via Zen) to liberal Christian (all of which represent positions that I deeply admire). I am an honest doubter on the edges of Christianity (a noble calling I share with your own former Primus, Richard Holloway). However, I do love Scotland and visit Edinburgh and the Islands on a regular basis. When I visit I always try and go to church. I usually go to Old Saint Paul’s or St John’s in Edinburgh. I consider myself an Anglican in Scotland (much like the Queen becomes Presbyterian…). I do so because the Scottish Episcopal Church has always represented – to me at least – the most progressive, open minded Christian community on these islands and which retains, at the same time, the beauty and ritual of the Catholic tradition. I must have been mistaken. I would never have thought the Scottish Bishops (all intelligent and sensitive individuals as far as I can tell) could produce such a document – which completely misses the point. I know Bishop David a little bit because he used to be rector of Seagoe Parish in Northern Ireland and I went to school with his children. I served on the vestry in that Parish after his departure to Scotland. I have followed his blog since. While I have a huge amount of respect and admiration for Bishop David, I can’t help but wonder why he remains silent on this issue. Do Bishops ever reveal where they stand on any issue of controversy? The Bishops need to know that real people want change and that documents like the one released simply confound and mystify those of us who see that a prophetic church would be leading the way on inclusion rather than entrenching the old prejudices. Bishop David and all the Scottish Bishops, for the love of God, say what you mean and mean what you say! Do not be afraid.

Reply
1. Fr John E Harris-White
  
  11/12/2014
  
  Steven,thank you for your comment. Exactly my thoughts. Together with sadness, and hurt.
  
  Reply
Craig Nelson

11/12/2014

I wonder if the College of Bishops feel the need of a holding operation. In any case I hope change comes. It may come from the people rather than the Bishops. Still very disappointing.

Reply
Ritualist Robert

18/12/2014

Though I agree that the tone of this isn’t particularly helpful (but then, has a communique from a group of bishops ever been particularly helpful?) I read it more as guidance on how clergy can (indeed must) avoid breaking the law.

I don’t think it would do anybody a favour if a same-sex couple came an SEC priest, were purportedly ‘married’ by him/her when, in fact, that priest was unable to do so under the law.

I think the bishops’ letter was in large part an attempt to protect both clergy and same-sex couples. But, as I say, I agree that the tone of the communique isn’t particularly helpful, especially when it comes to ordinands, for example.

Reply
1. Kelvin
  
  19/12/2014
  
  I don’t think anyone at all has a problem with the bishops giving guidance on bit breaking the law. That really isn’t the issue at all. It is about the tone and the other aspects of the guidance and the fact that this was withheld until a week before the law changed. Oh, and making pronouncements about people without consultung them.
  
  Reply