Mike's musings

Atonement

I've just finished working on the Reading for the next ERMC weekend at London Colney, in a week and a half's time. The workload's rather high, I'd say, and there's a weird cross-over between the material that Mike Butterworth and Richard Morgan have prepared for us. I found Richard's material easier, as it's more to my liking in terms of how I learn. Mike's work is in the style of worksheets and a self-learning course. Richard's is more classic academic: having said that, there are times when it's a bit note-like. There are also times when he goes a little reflective, and first-person, but I don't mind that particularly, on reflection. :-)

The way that Richard presents the theories of atonement (and we'll come back to the word "theories" in a moment), there are four:

1. Christus Victor - this sees Christ as victor over the devil, ransoming humankind from the debt owed to the devil by sin.
2. the Latin theory - espoused by Anselm, this has God the Father sending God the Son to earth to right the injustice of a humankind enslaved to sin. Only by God becoming human (the incarnation) and also dying (though sinless) can humankind be liberated from sin. Justice is important in this theory.
3. the subjective theory - God does not need to send his Son to redeem us: he is both merciful and all-powerful, and could just forgive. However, (to cite Richard), "...God shares our life and death in Jesus, to show us his love, to inspire us to love and trust, and to set us an example." This provides rather too weak a view of sin for my taste, and actually down-plays Jesus' sacrifice, I'd say.
4. the solidarity ("recapitulation") theory - Jesus shares our lives (in solidarity with us), and our deaths, and fulfils (through a typological connection with Adam and Eve, and the cross as tree of life) the promise/curse of humankind.
5. (vicarious (or representative) confession (or penitence) - so there's a fifth, but it combines part of the subjective and Latin theories (in my view, the weaker parts!))

One thing that I really don't like is Richard's associating te different theories with different (alleged) character types (e.g., apparently the Christ Victor theory might apply to the "paranoid", and the subjective to the "healthy-minded"). I'm really, really not convinced: although I know that Richard isn't entirely conviced, I think this is grossly oversimplifying, and I don't like pigeon-holing of "character types", particularly when they're very, very subjective.

So, where do I stand? I'm with the Latin, and Christus Victor views. I like the ransom view, and I like the injustice view. I don't buy the criticism raised against the Latin view, that God is showing inhumanity (not just unhumanity and divinity) and cruelty by causing Jesus to suffer. For me, this downplays the doctrine of the Trinity too much. I don't need the subjective view very much - partly because I'm happy to accept the Holy Spirit's prompting to us to love and trust, through the example of Jesus' death (which I'm also happy to accept as required for justice).

What about the theory issue? I think that Richard maybe holds a humanities concern over how scientists think about theories. At one point, he says: "Some so called theories were proposed in opposition to others. A 'theory' may[be] suggests a whole, a total overall understanding, [however much uncertainty there may be about details] and perhaps an exclusivity. [Compare: If you hold the theory of evolution, you exclude other theories]. Yet most Atonement theories are not mutually exclusive, and it may be that the most opposed are far closer to each other than their proponents imagined." (Richard's square parentheses, not mine). I don't think that if you "hold" the theory of evolution, then you necessarily exclude other theories. To "hold" a theory really suggest that you believe that it's the best fit for the available evidence. That doesn't exlude other theories: and you theories aren't rules, they're attempts for best fit hypothesis-sets for the evidence you have. As someone with a scientific and humanities background (and a post-modern bent), I'm happy to hold a variety of different "theories" in mind at one time, even if they have some contradictory aspects.

Music today

• Verdi / Rigoletto - Caro nome - Maria Callas (The Best Of Romantic Callas)
• Nun Komm, Der Heiden Heiland - Ulrik Spang-Hanssen (Dietrich Buxtehude: Complete Organ Works (Disc 1))
• Praeludium In G Minor - Ulrik Spang-Hanssen (Dietrich Buxtehude: Complete Organ Works (Disc 1))
• Herr Christ, Der Einig Gottes Sohn - Ulrik Spang-Hanssen (Dietrich Buxtehude: Complete Organ Works (Disc 1))
• Praeludium In G Major - Ulrik Spang-Hanssen (Dietrich Buxtehude: Complete Organ Works (Disc 1))
• Herr Christ - Ulrik Spang-Hanssen (Dietrich Buxtehude: Complete Organ Works (Disc 1))
• Canzonetta In G Major - Ulrik Spang-Hanssen (Dietrich Buxtehude: Complete Organ Works (Disc 1))
• Canzonetta In C Major, BuxWV167 - Ulrik Spang-Hanssen (Dietrich Buxtehude: Complete Organ Works (Disc 1))
• Praeludium In C Major, BuxWV136 - Ulrik Spang-Hanssen (Dietrich Buxtehude: Complete Organ Works (Disc 1))
• Canzonza In G Major - Ulrik Spang-Hanssen (Dietrich Buxtehude: Complete Organ Works (Disc 1))
• Gelobet Seist Du, Jesus Christ, BuxWv188 - Ulrik Spang-Hanssen (Dietrich Buxtehude: Complete Organ Works (Disc 1))
• She's A Star (Andrea's Biosphere Mix) - James (She's A Star)
• Trouble - Coldplay (Parachutes)
• She's A Star - James (She's A Star)
• Laid - James (Laid)
• Just Like Fred Astaire - James (Millionaires)