“Stuck between the pendalum and the status quo” – I won’t soon forget that. By wanting to “hang your hat” on the “heavier” theories I hear you saying that you want to emphasis the theories of the atonement that are “heavy” particularly because they speak or resonate with your setting, your culture. That is what makes them “heavy”. Is that right or are you saying something else? If that is what you are saing, then I don’t think you are arguing for something different than what Schmiechen is contending for in this book. Specific theories which employ certain imagery are potent precisely because (1) they are true and speak to how the world really is in relation to God and (2) they resonate with whatever setting in which and to which you are situated, called, empassioned, etc…In that setting they should be used – just not to the total isolation of other views. By Schmiechen’s reasoning, the central message is God’s saving power and whatever theory employs the imagery most affective for your setting is the theory that should or could drive proclamation.

Am I off the mark on interpreting your comments this way?

Kent

Good remarks. I agree with you that theology should and, when done well, does impact our lives positively but I’m not sure the Christus Victor theory is the only option when it comes to theories of the atonement that impact life this way. This will be a topic of conversation I hope throughout out discussion so I don’t want you to feel like I am saying anything close to definitive at this point. Let me say this however, I do not think those who hold to a penal substitution view think the atonement has no impact on the Kingdom – YET I think you are right to note that the way in which the penal substitution view is often articulated, preached, etc…does not display well the inherent connections that can be found there. It is often articulated in a far too individualistic way. Let’s keep this one on the burner and we will surely return to it when we read about the penal theory. If you are interested in reading one contemporary reformed theologians who believes the view can be reformed (and finds it too individualistic), read Hans Boersma, “Violence, the Cross, and Divine Intentionality” in Atonement and Violence edited by John Sanders. He develops this further in Violence, Hospitality, and the Cross (Eerdmans, 2004).

Regarding your comments about Gerard, I think you misunderstood me. I was not drawing a connection between Gerard and his followers and the issue of cultural settings. The Gerard remarks I made to Sarah were only as an aside in light of her comments on mimetic imagery. If this is the smallest misunderstanding we have during our discussion –we are doing great :)

Karl –

In response to your first question regarding “compensation”: As you can see from Dr. Schmiechen’s comments above, the intent of his work is to move the church toward a more “fully-orbed” proclamation of the atonement. That relates to my comments about compensation in the following way: I am pushing us to work out Schmiechen’s thesis and that would require a proclamation that would give priority to God’s saving power and not give priority to one view or another or only do so based on the context in which the message is witness to. Still, whichever theory would be employed, if we take Schmiechen’s argument, then the emphasis is on saving power.

Concerning whether we can discern certain “priorities” in scripture: Yes indeed we can. As it relates to this discussion, if we take Schmiechen’s cue then we should see the priority of God’s saving power displayed to and for the world in the crucifixion. Does the Kingdom of God have such priority as well? Certainly. And I think when we get to the discussion of the penal view we will see that it may need some reworking in order to due justice to that priority.

I appreciate your candour regarding “biases” etc. Certainly we all have them and you are wise to put yours on the table. If you remember from our discussion of The Nature of the Atonement in class last summer, it was just that issue that Joel Green was urging Dr. Schneider to do. My advice: try and keep an open mind for the sake of our discussion. I know you will.

Kent

1. One purpose of the book is to overcome the imperialism of claiming one view is the only right view. Therefore it will not be a step forward to substitute a new one for the preferred view of your tradition. So I am open
to the language of “fully orbed” or a more “comprehensive” view of atonement.

In theory, we ought to be able to go off to some wonderful place (e.g., at the foot of the Rocky Mts) and construct a unified view. I think that ultimately they all fit together but we are also called to be faithful in particular situations. In fact, that is why we have many theories.

Perhaps we have to live with the glorious variety for a while-the same way we live with four gospels and many letters in the NT. Certainly there are “priorities” but they usually mean different things in different places.
Context does not mean relativism. There may not be one priority for all times and places, but in certain situations there may well be a priority. So I am reluctant to say one theory is most adequate or even that they are all equal. If theories are valid it is because they witness to some aspect of saving power.

2. I assumed the piece by Sarah represented a non-western critique of descriptive language. Then it turned that the writer is probably a westerner, protesting the dominant empirical view from within the West. When I re-read the piece, the words were the same, but I interpreted them differently. Thus we have the possibility of multiple contexts of two authors and two ways of reading the same text. Given the finite character of human beings, and the prohibition against graven images,and the plurality of contexts, I don’t see any choice but to acknowledge the fragile and limited character of language. That’s why we have to re-do theology in each generation and write a new sermon for Sunday.

3. The distinction between indicative and mimetic is important. But religious language tries to unite the two, i.e., to describe something with such power that the language draws the listener into the reality. This is
why I think theories begin with an image, i.e., a word that catches our imagination and prompts us to look beyond the descriptive. If language is only descriptive, it would be flat. But I can not imagine how it could be totally mimetic, since that would assume it is the Word itself. I think God
uses things of this world to reveal God. So we say that even Scripture must be given life by the Spirit. I am also reminded that there have always been two ways of testifying to the resurrection: reciting the words of the witnesses (descriptive) and the experience of the power of Jesus and the Spirit in our world, community, and our lives (mimetic). History tells us never to separate the two approaches.

4. Re. Rene Girard. I do not think he is an example of sacrifice defined by the Letter to the Hebrews, since that sees Jesus as our High Priest and views his sacrifice leading to salvation. The Girardian approach sees God
using the cross as a judgment against ritual violence (scapegoating). I am willing to call it #11.

5. Re. Benjamin Peters search for the appropriate response to a victim of violence: When I wrote that we must be confident in proclaiming the cross I did not mean that that would give easy, instant answers for difficult
situations. It might, however help one to know what not to say and provide some options for responding. Sometimes simply being with a person is the first way of being gracious.

Peter Schmiechen

I have been thinking quite a bit about the idea of compensation I first posted, and your responce. I have come to deliberate on the issue along these lines: 1) Is our goal to present the atonement with absolutely NO emphasis whatsoever on any particular view rather, to have a “fully orbed” presentation, always striving to hold all the biblical models and images together?

The first responce I have to that is wondering whether or not that is a fair way to formulate the question, so, I would be interested in everyone’s reactions to that formulation…

Second, I am led to ponder whether or not there are certain “priorities” in scripture. Are the certain theologies that are more important than others, that should take a front seat or a back seat in our formulation of the body of Christ and in our building of the kingdom? If so, what implication does that hold for various views of the same theology, such as the atonement?

I am inclined to think that there are priorities in theology, Jesus himself gave a very specific answer when questioned, “what is the greatest commandment?” To me, that seems to suggest that in our understandings of God, of the church, of ourselves, of the world there are things that are more important and things that are less importnat. There is even language in scripture given to us, the “weightier” matters.

Therefore, I am struggling against the thought that our goal is truly to hold all the scriptural atonement images as completely equal as we formulate for ourselves and minister by presenting the saving power of God throgh the glorious atonement…

Finally, in responce to something that Ryan said, in my understandings of the various views (as they currently stand, with the full realization that I have much to learn and understand still) the Christus Victor view seems to hold a priority (or more fully present the “weightier things,” or deal more with the “greatest commandment”) because: 1) It more fully engages the full reality of the love of God intersecting with the nitty gritty of our every day lives, 2) It seems to inherently create the saving community of the church by very nature of it’s presentation of God’s saving power, 3) Its creation of the church is more holistic, and finally 4) I find it leaving me with fewer questions than any other view (this is to draw on a principle of biblical interpretation that any view of scripture we take should answer more questions than other views without simultaneously introducing new, unnecessary difficulties).

And a final confession, I fully understand that my own biases are playing into some of these formulations. Specifically, I have real issues with the lack of concern much of western Christianity has for the poor (and I mean specifically the physically poor), the oppressed, and the outsider. I also take issue with the general lack of respect for God’s glorious and prescious creation that I see in many forms of Christianity, and finally, I find there to be a strong connection between individualism and selfishness/self-centeredness that is saddening considering the radical alternative to which I believe the gospel calls us. Therefore, because of those biases, I admit, I am inclined to the Christus Victor view because I find it to answer more of these questions than other views.

Finally finally, I hope and pray that when I put myself out there with the conviction that I believe is coming through with my words, it is always understood to be a longing to engage even more fully in dialogue, disagreement, and Christ centered wrestling with the word of God. So, please everybody feel free to respond to me with as much and more convictions as I take great joy in working the craft of theology by passionately and respectfully engaging one another for God’s glory. And if at any point I come across as disrespectful, I give me deepest apologies as that is never my heart.

-Karl

-In response to Karl’s call for an emphasis on the Christus Victor view, Dr. Eilers said, “Toward “compensating” for the overemphasis of the penal view, won’t an emphasis on Christus Victor (or choose another theory if you like) just lead to a generation of people weened on that theory with no context for the penal view or other theories?”
In analyzing any view of the atonement, or any theology in general, what purpose does theology serve if it does not impact our lives? In this context, the most effective understanding of the atonement seems to be the Christus Victor view. By understanding the atonement in the context of ushering in the Kingdom of God on earth and destroying Satan’s power, the Christus Victor view brings an urgent message for citizens of the Kingdom to enable redemption on this earth and take back power from Satan that is no longer his. The penal substitution view has no such impact on the Kingdom. If there is an urgent message in the penal substitution view, I apologize for my ignorance. Therefore, if primacy is given to Christus Victor, this is appropriate (notice “primacy” implies that the other views are still present in our understanding).

-I really don’t want to sound like I’m picking on Dr. Eilers. These are simply some humble observations. I have always understood Girard’s work on mimesis to have less to do with cultural setting than to emerge from a hermeneutic of peace. Perhaps that very hermeneutic emerges from a particular cultural setting. On the other hand, the work of many “mimetic scholars” point to understanding the peacable Kingdom of God. If a particular theological model in any area does not seem to align with the message of the Kingdom, it is necessary to take a closer look. Perhaps we misunderstood the symbolism that led to our model, or we misunderstood the message of the Kingdom. I would contend that Girard is certainly trying to argue that the model is wrong (Book II of Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World). Ironically, Girard understands Jesus’ act on the cross as being meant to expose the very scapegoat model that it has come to be understood as through the centuries…but that is neither here nor there at this point.

I also apologize for my lack of specific citations. Perhaps when my thesis is completely revised I will have time for such niceties as online academic integrity.

Well said! Your passion is refreshing – stoke it and don’t let anyone or anything pour cold water on it.

Regarding your comments to question 2: Can we still emphasize the relevance of the atonement for the individual without having an individualistic witness to the atonement? Maybe what I am getting at is this: While also being drawn to the atonement theories that capitalize on God’s purposes on the grand scale (and not solely the individual “me”) I would not want to swing the pendalum so far the other way that one’s atonement language leaves out the individual completely. It seems to be the challenge of talking about the “whole world” and the “whosoever” at the same time (Jn 3:16). I will be interested to see how you work this out as our discussion continues.

Kent

I find myself in a strange situation. After two tours in Iraq I found myself asking: do I believe? Three years later I am left with all the academic tools seminary has to offer, but faithfully wanting. Subsequently, I am teaching at an urban Denver high school for juvenile delinquents, teen mothers, gang members, and drug addicts. Now I find myself asking: what is the point of believing? What do I tell the girl who told me her father, uncle, and grandfather had raped her, her mother committed suicide, and now she is left alone in the foster care system: “Jesus loves you, died for you, and has a wonderful plan for your life!?” Not only do I feel ill prepared, but I am also reminded of my own ineptitude when reading Schmiechen, “if one cannot find a way to confess the saving power of the cross, then Jesus becomes irrelevant and the church has no good news” (1). All this to say, YES the church needs multiple ways to “get at” the atonement or it risks falling woefully short of the biblical implications for the atonement. Western evangelicalism for far too long has reduced the atonement to a patriotic consumer driven individual self-help guide, and sadly people like my students (not to mention the rest of us) are the ones who suffer. In order to properly confess the saving power of the cross churches and Christian institutions must find relevant ways to express atonement theology without falling prey to the lust of doctrinal exclusivity. Certain atonement theologies might work in the wealthy Denver suburbs, but they fail when preached to those who are broken, marginalized, or exploited.

Question 2:

The form of Christianity that was taught to me as a young believer failed me. I could no longer “maintain” a relationship with God on my own and consequently developed a “functional view of religion.” Hence, I find myself most drawn to The Purposes of God criteria, in that it takes into account the meta-narrative of the redemption story. Atonement no longer becomes about “me” and what God has done for “me,” but his faithfulness in regards to his divine will. In regards to my setting I find the most relevant criteria to be Persons in Community. In ministering to students who have been buffeted by life, I find that my words and actions often fail. However, when as a community embodying the message of Christ the church comes together to support or act on behalf of someone, I then see the transformative aspects of a holistic approach to the atonement.

Question 5:

I believe it is imperative to include multiple images of atonement in our ministries, or else we fail to encompass all that the atonement signifies. Pragmatically, this is not an easy thing to do, but I believe blogging is as good a start as any. Humble dialogue is always a good foundation. We need to begin to incorporate different aspects of the atonement in our seminaries, churches, and ministries so that we have different images to pull from. Once we have different images in which to pull from then the process of choosing relevant images per individual settings should take place in the midst of a communal hermeneutic, allowing those serving and being served to define what image speaks to the saving and transformative power of Christ within that community.