Avoidance of Atonement “theories” in some churches

Baby Cottontail

Well-Known Member
Sep 25, 2016
834
273
41
Northwest Ohio
✟19,571.00
Faith
United Methodist
Marital Status
Single
I have noticed a trend recently, at least in my church. It seems that someone or a group of Christian scholars have decided that there are various “theories” of atonements (and there seems to be an assumption along with that that these theories are competing....that there can only be one right one, or that a person can only select and hold to one), and there is also the assumption that these theories are complicated.

This has seemingly led to my pastor completely avoiding the topic altogether, as well as an avoidance of the topic in Christian education materials (example: confirmation material, Sunday School literature, etc.). My pastor would not go anywhere near giving a reason that Jesus died on the cross on Good Friday (or at any other time). Thus, his sermons on Good Friday and Easter left me feeling very empty.

Does this seem to be a trend that others are seeing?

Based on my pastor’s sermon last Sunday, he basically said he doesn’t feel that theology is very important at all. He considers theories about the atonement to be “some complicated mathematical atonement theory” that he doesn’t believe is necessary for someone to believe in.

I do not agree with him at all about this subject, as by not talking about it, we are left with only a social gospel.
 

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,173
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,895.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
While God is above us, superior to us, and we cannot fully know all of His thoughts (scripture tells us) --

Isaiah 55:8 "For My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways," declares the LORD.
Isaiah 55:9 "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so My ways are higher than your ways and My thoughts than your thoughts.

And we should remember that -- we will not encompass God, delimit Him -- know all things about Him, as if He were less than us....

It does still seem among the main theories of atonement, that many or even all can be simultaneously true:
7 Theories of the Atonement Summarized - Stephen D. Morrison

And we should nevertheless humbly remember it is also deeper than we know....

But it seems strongly clear such as in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew chapters 5-7), the gospel has a lot in it for us, even if we don't know every possible mystery (deep thing) yet. We know the key deep things we need to know, and that is very much.

And already what we have clearly told to us is so much it's a lifetime of fulfilling and rewarding engagement to hear and put into practice.

You won't feel as if there is not enough if you are hearing and doing the things Christ said to us we must hear and do.

So, I think it's helpful to learn at least several of the theories of atonement, especially if you want to discuss God with the more philosophically inclined. But it's true it isn't necessary. In a way, a person can have an 'understanding' without it being well articulated...
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Baby Cottontail

Well-Known Member
Sep 25, 2016
834
273
41
Northwest Ohio
✟19,571.00
Faith
United Methodist
Marital Status
Single
While God is above us, superior to us, and we cannot fully know all of His thoughts (scripture tells us) --

Isaiah 55:8 "For My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways," declares the LORD.
Isaiah 55:9 "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so My ways are higher than your ways and My thoughts than your thoughts.

And we should remember that -- we will not encompass God, delimit Him -- know all things about Him, as if He were less than us....

It does still seem among the main theories of atonement, that many or even all can be simultaneously true:
7 Theories of the Atonement Summarized - Stephen D. Morrison

And we should nevertheless humbly remember it is also deeper than we know....

But it seems strongly clear such as in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew chapters 5-7), the gospel has a lot in it for us, even if we don't know every possible mystery (deep thing) yet. We know the key deep things we need to know, and that is very much.

And already what we have clearly told to us is so much it's a lifetime of fulfilling and rewarding engagement to hear and put into practice.

You won't feel as if there is not enough if you are hearing and doing the things Christ said to us we must hear and do.
Thanks for your response.

I definitely don’t believe that the theories of atonement are mutually exclusive. I believe that they can all be simultaneously true, which is the main reason I don’t see any point in trying to separate them into different theories. The only point in trying to make a distinction between them is if you don’t like/agree with/believe in at least one of them, which allows someone to just dismiss the ones they don’t like.

My entire point is that when the theories are separated, all it does is add a lot of extra confusion and makes the whole thing very complicated, to the point where some pastors won’t even touch the topic, resulting in the gospel not be proclaimed.

It also provides a way for people who don’t believe in a blood atonement to still claim that they believe in some kind of atonement, and thus they can still consider themselves “Christian.”
 
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,173
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,895.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Thanks for your response.

I definitely don’t believe that the theories of atonement are mutually exclusive. I believe that they can all be simultaneously true, which is the main reason I don’t see any point in trying to separate them into different theories. The only point in trying to make a distinction between them is if you don’t like/agree with/believe in at least one of them, which allows someone to just dismiss the ones they don’t like.

My entire point is that when the theories are separated, all it does is add a lot of extra confusion and makes the whole thing very complicated, to the point where some pastors won’t even touch the topic, resulting in the gospel not be proclaimed.

It also provides a way for people who don’t believe in a blood atonement to still claim that they believe in some kind of atonement, and thus they can still consider themselves “Christian.”
Those are good points. We do know from Christ's words what it takes to be acceptable to Him as one of His sheep, His followers. He didn't specify we have to have a lot of knowledge about atonement even -- we just have to believe in that atonement! ... He didn't say that we must for example know/understand all of the epistle to the Romans (which explains much)....

But, He did specify some things required of us, such as for instance, John 10:27 My sheep listen to My voice; I know them, and they follow Me. -- we are His if we believe and we listen to Him (that is, believe in reality, actually believe, so that because of actually believing we want to and will indeed listen and hear what He says in His words to us in the gospels (over time, striving to hear Him)).
 
Upvote 0

Baby Cottontail

Well-Known Member
Sep 25, 2016
834
273
41
Northwest Ohio
✟19,571.00
Faith
United Methodist
Marital Status
Single
Those are good points. We do know from Christ's words what it takes to be acceptable to Him as one of His sheep, His followers. He didn't specify we have to have a lot of knowledge about atonement even -- we just have to believe in that atonement! ... He didn't say that we must for example know/understand all of the epistle to the Romans (which explains much)....

But, He did specify some things required of us, such as for instance, John 10:27 My sheep listen to My voice; I know them, and they follow Me. -- we are His if we believe and we listen to Him (that is, believe in reality, actually believe, so that because of actually believing we want to and will indeed listen and hear what He says in His words to us in the gospels (over time, striving to hear Him)).
Oh, I agree that there is no requirement to have a complete understanding, but it hurts the gospel if people won’t even preach it because they don’t want to deal with all these theories.

It should be clear from Scripture that Jesus died on the cross for our sins, and although we can explain this different ways, the very concept itself is not complicated. It’s all over the NT. Many Churches, Christian organizations, etc. are able to explain the general idea of Jesus dying on the cross for our sin very quickly, without going into any kind of names for theories.
 
Upvote 0

Akita Suggagaki

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2018
6,732
4,895
69
Midwest
✟279,058.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
It should be clear from Scripture that Jesus died on the cross for our sins, and although we can explain this different ways, the very concept itself is not complicated.

I agree . But many cannot help but ask, "Exactly how?' What does his death have to do with my sins 2,000 years later?
 
Upvote 0

Andrewn

Well-Known Member
CF Ambassadors
Supporter
Jul 4, 2019
5,801
4,309
-
✟678,702.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Based on my pastor’s sermon last Sunday, he basically said he doesn’t feel that theology is very important at all. He considers theories about the atonement to be “some complicated mathematical atonement theory” that he doesn’t believe is necessary for someone to believe in.

I do not agree with him at all about this subject, as by not talking about it, we are left with only a social gospel.
I definitely agree w/ your last sentence and feel that theology, as a way to try to know God, is quite essential in order to love Him.

About the Atonement being complicated, please let me know how the blood of Jesus cleanses the conscience as stated repeatedly so many times in Hebrews? Why is Jesus' blood essential? What does it do?
 
Upvote 0

Baby Cottontail

Well-Known Member
Sep 25, 2016
834
273
41
Northwest Ohio
✟19,571.00
Faith
United Methodist
Marital Status
Single
I agree . But many cannot help but ask, "Exactly how?' What does his death have to do with my sins 2,000 years later?
And that’s another thing that my pastor seems to be really concerned with—trying to make his sermons relevant to daily life today. He doesn’t think theology helps with that.

Thus, yes, he avoids the whole topic. He clearly does not want to get into that. That’s why his Good Friday sermon was entirely about how the disciples must have felt to see Jesus die, was about the subject of death in general, and he talked about how he had felt when his own grandmother had died. He talked about grief and invited his own viewers to consider the death of those close to them. He absolutely did not mention anything about why Jesus died or what Jesus’ death meant for a believer. Subject just 100% avoided.

Same with Easter. He didn’t really get into what Jesus’ resurrection means for the believer. Instead, he spent a lot of time talking about COVID-19, and how each of us could experience resurrections in our lives every day.

This kind of preaching is probably what lots of people want, but not me. I just find it empty, because when I read the NT, everything seems to have Jesus’ death and resurrection as the foundation.

I just don’t understand how not preaching Jesus’ death and resurrection is supposed to bring people into the faith. Sigh....
 
Upvote 0

Baby Cottontail

Well-Known Member
Sep 25, 2016
834
273
41
Northwest Ohio
✟19,571.00
Faith
United Methodist
Marital Status
Single
I definitely agree w/ your last sentence and feel that theology, as a way to try to know God, is quite essential in order to love Him.

About the Atonement being complicated, please let me know how the blood of Jesus cleanses the conscience as stated repeatedly so many times in Hebrews? Why is Jesus' blood essential? What does it do?
I believe that we are cleansed by Jesus’ blood. Jesus lived a perfect life, which is something that I cannot do. I can’t save myself. Jesus took my place and suffered and died, paying for my sins. He made me righteous. It’s directly related to the OT sacrifices, which all required the blood of unblemished animals. Jesus’ blood puts us in right relationship with God, bridging the gap between us and God.

If I thought about it and took more time, I could write even more, but I am hot and sweaty —humidity right now is close to 100%.

I can at least explain a bit of what I believe. Can I name the theories that I described from above? No. I just believe that Jesus died on the cross for my sins. I don’t need a name for the theories. I simply believe what the Bible says.

Sure, I am no pastor, and I don’t have to worry about offending someone or causing contention because of atonement theories, but honestly, pastors should not worry about that anyway. If a pastor is convinced of the gospel, he should be able to at least say something about Jesus’ death on Good Friday.
 
Upvote 0

St_Worm2

Simul Justus et Peccator
Supporter
Jan 28, 2002
27,247
45,335
67
✟2,916,149.00
Country
United States
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Hello @Baby Cottontail, the only reason (that I can think of) to avoid teaching the Incarnation, the Cross and/or the Resurrection, is to avoid talking about the very reason that the Lord Jesus came here, to save us from our sins and to reconcile us to His Father .. e.g. Matthew 1:21; Romans 5:8-10.

I can certainly understand why you are upset. Maybe you should ask your pastor and see if you can figure out what's behind this new "trend" in your church (and if this change of direction is permanent as well).

God bless you!

--David
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Andrewn

Well-Known Member
CF Ambassadors
Supporter
Jul 4, 2019
5,801
4,309
-
✟678,702.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I believe that we are cleansed by Jesus’ blood. . . . Jesus’ blood puts us in right relationship with God, bridging the gap between us and God.
I believe this also. But, sorry, this doesn't answer my question :).

I definitely don’t believe that the theories of atonement are mutually exclusive. I believe that they can all be simultaneously true, which is the main reason I don’t see any point in trying to separate them into different theories. The only point in trying to make a distinction between them is if you don’t like/agree with/believe in at least one of them, which allows someone to just dismiss the ones they don’t like.
Yes, I completely agree. In fact, this morning I attended a Bible Study and the pastor presented the meaning of Atonement in a 1 minute illustration that would not offend anyone and everyone would agree with.

If I thought about it and took more time, I could write even more, but I am hot and sweaty —humidity right now is close to 100%.
We had a couple of hot and humid days here, also. But yesterday and today it's been nice and it's actually a little cool this evening. Hope you feel better.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Akita Suggagaki

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2018
6,732
4,895
69
Midwest
✟279,058.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
It’s directly related to the OT sacrifices, which all required the blood of unblemished animals. Jesus’ blood puts us in right relationship with God, bridging the gap between us and God.
but how and why? s it something about the hemodynamics? The blood chemistry? That makes it more appealing to the Father? I don't think so. I always saw the blood as representative of his love. there would have been no bloodshed if not for his love. That makes more sense to me.
 
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,005
5,622
68
Pennsylvania
✟780,935.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
I have noticed a trend recently, at least in my church. It seems that someone or a group of Christian scholars have decided that there are various “theories” of atonements (and there seems to be an assumption along with that that these theories are competing....that there can only be one right one, or that a person can only select and hold to one), and there is also the assumption that these theories are complicated.

This has seemingly led to my pastor completely avoiding the topic altogether, as well as an avoidance of the topic in Christian education materials (example: confirmation material, Sunday School literature, etc.). My pastor would not go anywhere near giving a reason that Jesus died on the cross on Good Friday (or at any other time). Thus, his sermons on Good Friday and Easter left me feeling very empty.

Does this seem to be a trend that others are seeing?

Based on my pastor’s sermon last Sunday, he basically said he doesn’t feel that theology is very important at all. He considers theories about the atonement to be “some complicated mathematical atonement theory” that he doesn’t believe is necessary for someone to believe in.

I do not agree with him at all about this subject, as by not talking about it, we are left with only a social gospel.
Whether we know it or not, we all, even atheists, have theology.
 
Upvote 0

public hermit

social troglodyte
Supporter
Aug 20, 2019
10,972
12,054
East Coast
✟830,807.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I have noticed a trend recently, at least in my church. It seems that someone or a group of Christian scholars have decided that there are various “theories” of atonements (and there seems to be an assumption along with that that these theories are competing....that there can only be one right one, or that a person can only select and hold to one), and there is also the assumption that these theories are complicated.

This has seemingly led to my pastor completely avoiding the topic altogether, as well as an avoidance of the topic in Christian education materials (example: confirmation material, Sunday School literature, etc.). My pastor would not go anywhere near giving a reason that Jesus died on the cross on Good Friday (or at any other time). Thus, his sermons on Good Friday and Easter left me feeling very empty.

Does this seem to be a trend that others are seeing?

Based on my pastor’s sermon last Sunday, he basically said he doesn’t feel that theology is very important at all. He considers theories about the atonement to be “some complicated mathematical atonement theory” that he doesn’t believe is necessary for someone to believe in.

I do not agree with him at all about this subject, as by not talking about it, we are left with only a social gospel.

I would rather hear about the various theories in a discussion context, like a study group. It's unfortunate if your pastor is unwilling to discuss them at all. I can understand not wanting to get that deep in woods on Sunday morning. The sermon is for proclamation, without apology or declination of various arguments, imo. But there is definitely a place for digging into the mystery.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Mark Quayle
Upvote 0

Baby Cottontail

Well-Known Member
Sep 25, 2016
834
273
41
Northwest Ohio
✟19,571.00
Faith
United Methodist
Marital Status
Single
Hello @Baby Cottontail, the only reason (that I can think of) to avoid teaching the Incarnation, the Cross and/or the Resurrection, is to avoid talking about the very reason that the Lord Jesus came here, to save us from our sins and to reconcile us to His Father .. e.g. Matthew 1:21; Romans 5:8-10.

I can certainly understand why you are upset. Maybe you should ask your pastor and see if you can figure out what's behind this new "trend" in your church (and if this change of direction is permanent as well).

God bless you!

--David
David,

Thanks for your kind message. The only thing that I can pinpoint as being the possible cause of the issue is a move towards more contemplative spirituality on the part of the pastors. I started detecting this around last Christmas, with some of the things both pastors were saying in the online services.

They wanted us all to read an Advent devotional with selected readings by Henri Nouwen (not sure if I spelled his name correctly). They also did the same thing for Lent (Lenton devotional by the same author). They also had zoom Bible Studies around Christmas time with a study book about spiritual disciplines. They began a sermon series on that same topic. This is when I started questioning some of the sermons. However, it was all online at the time, and I thought it might become better once that sermon series was over.

As the pastor had not even been at the church a year when the pandemic hit, I had not had a lot of time to evaluate the content of his sermons before then. He had had some good sermons, but he had not been my favorite speaker. Under him, there had never been a time when I had been in anticipation of his sermon.

Over time (especially since Advent) I have been increasingly disappointed with his sermons. The Good Friday, Easter, and this past Sunday have been the worst so far. The Good Friday and Easter sermons really, really disappointed and angered me.

He is not the congregation though. If enough people are unhappy and complain to church council, there is the possibility of him getting transferred out. As far as I can tell, it is only the pastors who are pushing against the death and resurrection of Jesus, although I really don’t know where people in my church stand on these doctrines.

Admittedly, there was a time when I was in high school and college when apparently there were some people in the congregation who had been against hearing on these topics. When I was in high school, the associate pastor at the time was not likely a believer. He was a major influence in getting the contemporary service started at the church. He convinced the committee that started the service to not have any crosses visible at the time. They “didn’t want any strange or unusual symbols that no one would understand.” I only found all that out later, after I had graduated from college. Someone told me about it, and I had it confirmed with someone who had been on that committee.

I also got to know the pastor of my church quite well after I had graduated from college. (This was a pastor who had started at the church while I was in college). She told me that when she first came that some people had told her that they didn’t want her preaching about Jesus’ death or resurrection. I have no idea who those individuals were, and that was long enough ago that some of them may be dead by now. I didn’t hear it directly, but my pastor told me about it when I was telling her about some of the frustrations I was experiencing there at the time.

That particular pastor really tried hard to turn things around. She held real Bible studies in which people learned about their Bibles. (One of my old Sunday school teachers from my elementary school days had made the comment that up until that Bible study, she had not known where Matthew was in the Bible). People in the congregation developed a passion for the Bible, and some people began meeting together and studying the Bible together. That pastor really preached the gospel, and people’s opinions were changed. People had uncovered crosses that had been hidden before. They brought Bibles out for people to read. Things really began turning around in that church.

Pastors do have a lot of influence in the direction that a church takes.

Could there still be a remnant of laity that are opposed to the gospel? Sure. But I had not heard anything recently. I don’t think that would be the cause of the pastor not preaching on the death and resurrection of Jesus. If he truly believed these things were essential, he would still preach on them despite any requests from laity not to. He would have stood up to them just as the former pastor had done when she told them she preached Jesus Christ and Him crucified, and if they didn’t like that, they would have to find themselves a new pastor.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Paidiske

Clara bonam audax
Supporter
Apr 25, 2016
34,110
19,006
43
Albury, Australia
Visit site
✟1,473,476.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
To answer the questions in the OP, I have definitely seen a trend of thinking that some theories - or ways of explaining - the atonement are less healthy than others, and an avoidance or de-emphasising of those theories.

For what it's worth, I agree with that to some degree, but I don't at all agree that theology is unimportant. Lex orandi, lex credendi, lex vivendi, and all that. I also don't see contemplative spirituality and robust theology as being mutually exclusive!
 
Upvote 0

Baby Cottontail

Well-Known Member
Sep 25, 2016
834
273
41
Northwest Ohio
✟19,571.00
Faith
United Methodist
Marital Status
Single
To answer the questions in the OP, I have definitely seen a trend of thinking that some theories - or ways of explaining - the atonement are less healthy than others, and an avoidance or de-emphasising of those theories.

For what it's worth, I agree with that to some degree, but I don't at all agree that theology is unimportant. Lex orandi, lex credendi, lex vivendi, and all that. I also don't see contemplative spirituality and robust theology as being mutually exclusive!
Thanks so much for providing your perspective!

I will not debate, as that is not the purpose of my thread here, and it isn’t in a debate forum. I am simply curious and am asking for general information here, as I want to know what others are observing.

Which atonement theories or ways of explaining the atonement do you or people you know view as less healthy than others?

I am trying to determine the current environment of the church, and what might be happening in other denominations. 1.) to be informed and 2.). To see which denominations might be a better or less good fit for me (if/when I change churches).
 
Upvote 0

Paidiske

Clara bonam audax
Supporter
Apr 25, 2016
34,110
19,006
43
Albury, Australia
Visit site
✟1,473,476.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I am seeing a move away from ways of explaining the atonement which emphasise things like God's wrath, our estrangement from God, and so on; and a move towards ways of talking about the atonement which emphasise God's steadfast love for us, God's willingness (in Christ) to empty Himself and suffer for our sake, and so on. In particular I'm seeing a move away from ways of talking about atonement which see the Son somehow being punished or even abused, rather than choosing the cross out of love.

If that makes sense?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Andrewn
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Baby Cottontail

Well-Known Member
Sep 25, 2016
834
273
41
Northwest Ohio
✟19,571.00
Faith
United Methodist
Marital Status
Single
I am seeing a move away from ways of explaining the atonement which emphasise things like God's wrath, our estrangement from God, and so on; and a move towards ways of talking about the atonement which emphasise God's steadfast love for us, God's willingness (in Christ) to empty Himself and suffer for our sake, and so on. In particular I'm seeing a move away from ways of talking about atonement which see the Son somehow being punished or even abused, rather than choosing the cross out of love.

If that makes sense?
Thank you.

Okay, so would that include a move away from the idea that there is a gap between us and God? (Seeing how you said estrangement from God above as one of the things you are seeing a move away from).

What about the idea of Jesus taking on our sins or dying in our place?

Or what about Jesus’ blood?

Again, I am asking this in order to understand other viewpoints, just to make sure I am understanding you correctly.

I see the whole cross as being God’s love for us.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mark Quayle
Upvote 0