A Comment

The following is a comment I posted to Tribal Church as part of a discussion that started on the subject of atonement. This is something I’ve said before in various ways, but I think this is one of the shorter and more efficient formulations.

***

“And yet, I cannot ignore power in the story of sacrifice that still impels me. There was, for some reason, this thought in so many ancient religions that in order to atone for our sins, in order to appease God, in order to make peace with the divine, we ought to pour out life-blood, whether it was a pigeon, or a lamb, or what have you. There is this narrative that we carry within us. It is part of who we are as human beings.”

In the book Lamb (which is comedy, but also very insightful at times), the idea is put forward that one of the things that Jesus sought to do was to abolish the human practice of atoning sacrifice. I think this is a compelling idea.

So is it not possible that, while there was a human need for sacrifice to atone, Jesus’ sacrifice was the ultimate, definitive demonstration that this need for blood before reconciliation is demonic and always counter to God’s will? I mean, the crucifixion is the worst case scenario. God becomes a human being and after we meet God, we decide to ridicule, torture and execute God publicly…and we do it with relish. What could *possibly* be worse?

In continuing to see substitutionary atonement as positive, then, we might be continually propping up something that God thought was so perverse that God underwent it personally in order to demonstrate how it is never redemptive, never justice?

If one takes this view, then there is still the necessity, theologically and in terms of narrative, that Jesus be crucified, because it has to go that far, it has to come to that terrible moral and theological impasse, before we are shocked out of our need for retribution, our need for blood as a prerequisite for reconciliation. So, Jesus “died to save us from sin”, and Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection function to atone and to reconcile, but not because the sacrifice was *good*, but precisely because it was the most terrible evil one can imagine.

4 thoughts on “A Comment

  1. Yeah – I gave it a day or so and decided that it wasn’t saying what I wanted to say in the way I wanted to say it. I have yet to come up with an improvement, however, so I might just put it back up.

    Like

  2. Doug,You make your case well and simply, which helps to get it across.You might be interested in reading Shannon Webster’s June 29 sermon on the binding of Isaac, in which he takes the same stand as you. Shannon is the pastor of First Presbyterian Church in Birmingham, Alabama. I had access to an advance copy of his sermon because we’re on the same list serve. List serve members share freely with each other, so I referred to his sermon in my sermon that Sunday. The sermon is here: http://tinyurl.com/6lcefm.In Christ,Mark

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s