What is in Kelvin's Head?

  • Atonement theory and the Naughty Step

    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.

    , , , , ,

5 responses to “St Strumpet?”

  1. Mary Brown Avatar
    Mary Brown

    How about the wife of Jesus, airbrushed out of the story by later misogynist Christians? See Starbird, M “The Woman with the Alabaster Jar” and other books by her. She is an ex-Catholic who set out to refute the Holy Blood, Holy Grail story and ended by being convinced that Jesus and Mary were a married pair (and an archetype of the male/female balance principle). There’s a wonderful window in Kilmore Church, Mull. Check it out – whoever created it intended it to represent J and M as husband and wife, and M is clearly pregnant. Of course, there is no unchallengeable evidence that Jesus was married, but what I would like to ask the sceptics is why, given that He was the word made flesh and dwelt among us, is it unacceptable for Him to have been a sexual being? Why have later Christians considered sexuality, even in a loving relationship, to be something disgusting? Because they have, we are now stuck with the nasty views of the NotW brigade that sex is either an acceptable leisure activity or something gross. As Margaret Starbird points out, if we restored Mary as Jesus’ beloved consort we would be creating a much more wholesome myth!

    Reply
    1. kelvin Avatar
      kelvin

      It is a little like the arguments that might be made of the relationship between Jesus and the beloved disciple though, isn’t it? All very attractive and neat if you come from a particular point of view but not really backed up with enough evidence apart from modern presumption, presupposition and desire.

      Reply
  2. ryan Avatar
    ryan

    I think the arguments on Jesus being married are very far from being liberationary. Rather, they’re the natural end-point of the Evangelical mindset that homophobically (and unbiblically) divides the world into Normal Heterosexual Married types and the demonised Other. “It is better to marry than burn” might have some mysognistic readings conducive to the fundamentalist world-view, but it hardly most naturally supports the idolatarisation of particular heterosexual relationships.

    If I had a pound for every time a nominal Sola Scriptura type had told me that St.Paul had to have been married (presumably because Our Lord’s asceticism and disinterest in heterosexual marriage is bad enough) then I would be a very rich man indeed 😉

    Interesting post Kelvin! Had no idea that St.Mary M even had red hair Perhaps she could be reclaimed as the Patron Saint of Gingers and Other Persecuted Minorities? 🙂

    Reply
    1. kelvin Avatar
      kelvin

      Oh, her hair was red, Ryan. Flaming Red I believe.

      Reply
  3. ryan Avatar
    ryan

    How reginal! 😉

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Previous Posts

  • That daring young man

    The most exciting thing I’ve seen all week was a daring young man. On a flying trapeze.

  • Veterinarian Bulletin #2

    Vet: So, how are things going with the tablets? Are you getting them down her? Me: Yes, no problem. She loves them. Vet: What?! Me: Takes them off the palm of my hand. Vet: I think we need to think about getting her to see a cat psychologist. There is obviously something very wrong.

  • Health bulletin etc

    Or perhaps “lack of health” bulletin. Life with a sick and rather sickly cat is challenging at the moment. Madam has two modes of operation – rather pathetic and grumpy as per usual. She has never been an entirely easy individual to cope with at the best of times. (Yes, rather like the person she…

  • Swimming

    Just back from yet another nifty 20 lengths of the pool, the third, or perhaps the fourth swim this week. Those who scoffed at the purchase of the flip-flops, scoff ye not. Swimming is holy too, of course.