Avoidance of Atonement “theories” in some churches

Paidiske said:

Not exactly. I think in what I'm seeing that gap is there, but the idea that it is there because of, say, God's rejection of or anger towards us is more seen as the problem. The gap is of our making, not of God's making, and God goes to the length of being willing to suffer the cross to bridge that gap and restore our relationship, when we could not.

Click to expand...

Okay. Thank you. That provides a little more clarity to what you are saying. I had never really thought about a difference in how some people might approach the idea of a gap, and I can see how some people might carry it to an extreme, which I think is what you are saying some people are reacting against.

I think I am beginning to understand what you are saying here. (That doesn’t mean I agree 100%, but I think we are much closer than I first had thought).

Certainly dying in our place. Taking on our sins needs some nuance, because I think for a lot of people that simply doesn't make sense. Here maybe I'm starting to understand what your pastor may be wrestling with. If I say to someone who's never heard the gospel before, "Jesus took on your sins," and that that was somehow a necessary transaction for our redemption, that God somehow required that transfer, I think for a lot of people they're going to struggle to understand that as good news.

Click to expand...

Oh, I am not suggesting that no explanation is necessary. Please don’t take what I am saying as what my pastor believes. I actually have no idea what he believes because he has not given me a hint about his beliefs on the subject.

I was simply asking for clarification because I had forgotten that some people viewed the atonement theories as abusive towards Jesus, and those that I had read or heard about seem to reject any atonement theories that had anything to do with Jesus’ blood in their entirety. Your earlier posts reminded me of that, so I wanted to make sure I was understanding you correctly.

I agree that by itself the idea of Jesus taking on our sins might be confusing, which is why I have never heard anyone suggesting it in total isolation from the rest of the gospel (only one component of Campus Crusade For Christ’s spiritual laws for example, or only one piece of my own denomination’s Faith Sharing New Testament, etc.). Basically what I am saying is that whenever I have heard the gospel being presented, this one component of it always presented in the overall context of the other pieces. I see this in the Bible as well.

Can you say a bit more here about what that means to you?

Click to expand...

The reason I asked about Jesus’ blood specifically here goes back to me remembering that some people totally reject that Jesus’ blood has any saving power. (Some who see the it as abuse).

There is a big divide in my own denomination about this. In the past 20 years or so the denomination has tried to update our hymnal a couple times, but I think a lot of people can’t agree on which hymns should be included. I know people who reject any hymns that mention Jesus’ blood. (Not in the congregation I am in, but people I knew in graduate school).

That’s why I was trying to check to see where you or some other people you knew stood on that. I wanted to make sure I was understanding you correctly, not reading other people I knew’s views into what you were saying.

hedrick said:

In the Protestant world, the dominant model has been penal substitution: sin requires punishment. God can't just forgive us, because that would violate justice. So he punishes Christ instead. Much of the recent discussion of theories has been to provide a better way to look at the atonement. Among those who object to penal substitution I think the current tendency is to say that Scripture doesn't adopt any one theory, but that various comparisons and images are used. In that context the discussion of multiple theories is really a way of pointing out the various ways Scripture talks about the atonement. I hope no one would object to that.

Click to expand...

Okay, thank you for that clarification. Unless I am misunderstanding you, this confirms the idea that those who don’t like penal substitution are the ones who are emphasizing the difference in these theories, in order to avoid penal substitution.

Would you say that this is a general push within all mainline denominations, or just specific ones? I realize that this trend would not apply to all pastors or all churches in a denomination. I am asking in general. And do you think that those high up in these denominations, and those responsible for writing Christian education materials (Sunday School material and confirmation material) would like to see the idea of penal substitution disappear from the denomination?

I am still trying to gather information to decide where I might fit in best. I think I am likely too conservative to fit well in with most mainline denominations, but my options are quite limited in the community I live in.

Paidiske said:

Basically, I think the pastoral concern is not to put people in a position where they feel hated or rejected by God.

Click to expand...

Ok. Thank you for explaining that. I can understand the concern, and I am sure that as a clergy person you have experienced and talked with others who may have felt that way.

As a layperson, I personally do not feel hated or rejected by God due to penal substitution. I have never heard of anyone feeling that way due to penal substitution, but then I talk to far fewer people than you would about their feelings towards God.

I view it as very important, so I really struggle if a pastor does not talk about it as part of the gospel.

I really appreciate that you shared your position here though because it does help me see how some pastors might approach the situation, and provides a reason for avoiding penal substitution.

Ah, yes, if you hadn't realised this then it would be confusing. I know that I have gone out of my way, when preaching, to dispel the "Father makes Son suffer = justice" kind of approach.

Click to expand...

Depending on what you say, or how you were saying this, I likely would be too conservative for your church.

I do appreciate that you are making it clear for your church where you stand, rather than just avoiding the issue. I would much rather a pastor make their position clear than to make me guess. This helps a person know whether or not they would fit in with a particular church.

Possibly part of the difficulty - and I am speculating here, not being familiar with your church or context - is that when preaching, presenting anything in a rich and deep context is difficult. Especially if you are concerned for the first-time visitor who has never heard any of this before, and might be trying to make sense of the good news for the first time, you might try to leave some of the more complicated things for another context (like small group studies).

Click to expand...

Thank you for explaining this as well. I can see that a pastor has a lot to think about, and he or she might approach topics differently from a layperson.

The problem I see with leaving things to a small group study is that a lot of people will not go to one (at least in the church I attend). If they never go to a small group, they would never hear the more complicated things that you are reserving for small groups.

I guess I am anti seeker friendly churches—not that I don’t want people who have never heard the gospel to come (I definitely do want them too). I just feel that if a church gears itself towards seeker friendly, and those seekers never go to a small group, how will they learn these things?

I look for a church that gives everything on Sundays, including these more complicated things because that is what I see as the truth. It’s a different perspective, and not everyone approaches the church in the same way. I know what feeds me and what doesn’t. What feeds me might be an obstacle to someone else, so it’s good that there are different churches out there.

I know that I sometimes adjust the way I say things, or what I include, not because I'm trying to avoid particular things but just because I'm not confident that I can do them justice on that particular occasion.

Click to expand...

Thank you. That at least gives me some understanding.

That tells me that someone doesn’t necessarily not believe in something, but I still struggle with them not mentioning it.

That's interesting, about the difficulty with updating the hymnal etc. Anglicans don't generally have a problem with the language of blood - after all, our communion practice has us receiving Jesus' blood in a quite concrete sense - but while I wouldn't avoid hymns that mention Jesus' blood, I might think carefully about how I talk about it in (for example) a sermon. Basically, context is everything!

Click to expand...

Our communion practice also involves us receiving Jesus’ blood. (If I remember correctly, the previous pastor who was highly sacramental, said that the UMC borrowed a lot from the Anglicans, since the Wesleys were Anglicans).

I don’t understand why some in the UMC want to avoid blood language for hymns.

But anyway, I do really appreciate your responses, as they have helped me understand what my pastor might be thinking when avoiding talking about the atonement. He might just not feel comfortable about it. That doesn’t erase my struggle with him not mentioning it, but it gives me a perspective I hadn’t had before.

hedrick said:

Sort of. Remember that penal substitution is one of the 5 "fundamentalist" from the original fundamentalist controversy, so that theory has been considered very important by many people. Also, be aware that penal substitution in its current form dates to the 16th Cent. There have been a number of other theories that are older. But calling them "theories" may be fairly recent. Penal substitution per se is a Protestant doctrine. Catholics accept substitution, but probably not the precise explanation that's called penal substitution. Eastern Orthodox even less so.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarification. . So if penal substitution was one of the original fundamentalist things, then that would suggest that there were at least some people back at that time that also were opposed to it.

That's hard to say. Mainline denominations have quite a range of beliefs. There are plenty of more conservative churches in them. But suspicion of penal substitution, and the use of multiple theories, is pretty common there. There's also interest among some evangelicals. Some in the anabaptist tradition have been leaders in identifying alternatives, because of their emphasis on non-violence.

Click to expand...

Hmmm...I think all denominations have probably changed their stance on things some over time, and I think all denominations have liberal and conservative churches in them. It seems like more liberal ideas are trickling down to pastors and lay people now. Or maybe it’s just that I have become more aware of it now.

Note that penal substitution doesn't necessary disappear. Certainly the general idea of substitution is still there. But if penal substitution remains, it's often viewed as one of many ways Scripture describes Jesus' death. That's what I'd expect to find in Sunday School material.

Click to expand...

What I have seen, though, is basically an absence of it in Sunday School material.

I actually might never have even heard of it if I had not gone to Campus Life Bible studies and a big conference while in high school, or been involved in Campus Crusade for Christ while in college. Then I heard more about it while in graduate school, and in churches that I had attended at that time.

Paidiske said:

Absolutely. It's a real thing, and it can lead to a lot of despair.

For what it's worth, I don't necessarily see this as a conservative/liberal thing. But one thing I've worked out in my time on CF is that those terms play a bit differently in America than in Australia! (hedrick will remember, for example, my repeated claim that the idea of "mainline" churches is pretty meaningless outside America).

Click to expand...

That’s really interesting. Would you say that Christians in Australia are pretty much in agreement with each other as to what Christianity is, and what the essentials of the Christian faith are?

But as an example, here's a couple of paragraphs from a recent sermon where I was trying to tackle just this point:

"There is, I think, something important consider here. And that is that in no way can we consider Father and Son to be divided or opposites. Sometimes in the way we think and talk about what Jesus did for us, in dying for us and opening a way back into intimate relationship with God, it sounds as if the Father and the Son were pulling something of a cosmic good cop-bad cop routine. The Father is presented as the “bad cop” who holds judgement and damnation over our heads, and the Son as the “good cop” who steps in, placates the “bad cop” and makes everything alright for us, if only we comply with what is being asked of us.

I have to tell you, that kind of thinking about God doesn’t wash. There is no difference in attitude towards us between Father and Son. Both the Father and the Son love us; both the Father and the Son care for us, and the Father and the Son collaborated together in the costly work of our redemption. In this, as much as in creation or any other work of God, they are united in purpose and action."

Click to expand...

I certainly do not view penal substitution like this, and do not know anyone who does. I am sure that some do, but that would not be a church I would be interested in attending. I think the view you are arguing against is unbiblical, and I hope that no one actually views penal substitution like that.

I have never viewed the Father and Son as opposites. Isn’t it more of a Gnostic view to see the Father as evil and the Son as good?

I definitely agree that viewing the Father as bad and the Son as good is definitely wrong. And so is viewing the Father and Son as opposites. The Father and Son are still one God, so viewing them as opposites makes no sense to me. Definitely, then, both the Father and the Son love us. I have never thought about this any other way. I 100% agree that our redemption was done as a collaboration, as with everything else that God does.

This is certainly true, and can be a real concern. There are no easy answers to some of these challenges.

I think there's probably a spectrum from one extreme to the other; from so completely seeker-friendly that the form and content of our worship and teaching are watered down into unrecognisability (I definitely am not comfortable at that extreme), to so completely focussed on the well-established long-term members that a visitor has no hope of following what's going on (an extreme example might be an Orthodox church worshipping in Old High Slavonic, where the language is literally incomprehensible to anyone who hasn't studied it). Each church has to chart a course somewhere between those extremes. I try to aim for being unapologetic about who we are, what we believe and what we do, but also being clear enough that a first time visitor can understand (to some degree) what they're experiencing. But it's a balancing act, and we all get it wrong sometimes!

Click to expand...

Yes, I agree that there is a spectrum between two extremes, and that each church and pastor must decide how best to balance it.

I think it’s good when people are given an explanation so that they can follow along. If someone is new to Christianity or to a particular church, hopefully someone notices, and kindly offers help to the individual. Hopefully they are able to follow along in a bulletin that explains some things. I think it’s also useful when churches explain what to expect at a service on their websites.

I know I found that extremely helpful when I visited a couple Jewish synagogues for a few classes I took.

From where I'm standing, personally, "giving everything on Sundays," (within one hour or so of a service) would just not be possible. It takes more than that from a participant or member to be able to grow into a fuller understanding and faith.

Click to expand...

I didn’t mean that every single thing should be given on Sundays, but at the same time, I want to hear what I think are the essentials of the Christian faith. That’s me personally, though, and is what I would like to seek out in a church.

Paidiske said:

No, not necessarily, but the social and cultural landscape is very different. Australia is much less churched than America. And the biggest and most culturally dominant church here is Roman Catholicism. So the issues and the debates tend to be different.

Click to expand...

Ok. Thank you

Possibly, but I think one issue with some ways of thinking and talking about the atonement is that they can end up straying into this sort of territory, even if only by misunderstanding.

Part of the difficulty, I think, is that the way our culture thinks and talks about matters like authority, power and justice have shifted dramatically over the last - I don't know - let me just say decades. But the way we talk about things like authority, power and justice in the church hasn't necessarily shifted with the culture, and so it's very easy to end up sounding as if we worship an abusive God. Or indeed as if we are unreflective and uncritical about the way our churches' cultures have been abusive in various ways.

And we see that played out in reports like this: Domestic abuse more prevalent amongst Anglicans, 'tragic' new research finds

Click to expand...

I honestly think that those who practice domestic abuse have a twisted understanding of love and of Christianity.

I have been on dating sites in which a supposedly Christian guy has contacted me, and he talks about his right to be able to “discipline” his wife if she doesn’t clean the house to his standards, and that it is the wife’s fault if a man has an affair because “his wife didn’t dress provocatively enough for him.”

What these guys have said is not a biblical view, although they have convinced themselves that it is.

I am sure there are multiple beliefs within Christianity that can be twisted by some to support an abusive relationship. Anything in the Bible can be pulled out of context in order to seem to support these twisted views.

One concern I have is with the “biblical manhood and womanhood” folks who are going to an extreme in teaching that men should rule over women, and have translated the Bible to agree with that kind of view. Thankfully, this doesn’t seem to be an issue in the UMC, but it is something I have seen online.

I am not sure that domestic abuse should be blamed on a misunderstanding of penal substitution, but then I don’t know how it is being taught in some churches. If it is contributing to domestic abuse, then that’s all the more reason that a correct view of it should be taught.

And that's fair enough, too! I don't know a lot about Methodist worship; do your services tend to incorporate things like confession and absolution, a recitation of the Creed, and other liturgical elements which would help to ensure that the essentials are there?

Click to expand...

It depends. Some pastors prefer extremely formal services while others prefer more informal. We also have traditional and contemporary services. However, as part of communion, we definitely have a confession and absolution in both of our services (traditional and contemporary). I am pretty sure this is almost required in the UMC, although I cannot say that all churches might do this.

We did have a recitation of a Creed under previous pastors in the traditional service. I think the current pastor eliminated that because he wanted to make the service shorter. It is in our hymnals though, as an official part of the communion liturgy.

Our previous pastor was extremely liturgical. Our current one is definitely not. How liturgical the service is depends a lot on the pastor.