I appreciate the reply. Before I respond, let me say I found your substack from a link Andrew Sullivan included to your Power of the Dog post. It was so refreshing to read your view on a film I also think was way overhyped and full of narrative holes. Anyway, speaking of narrative holes; when I talk about Atonement, I tend to stress 2 points. 1) the fact that there are numerous views on the cross in scripture is not surprising. I love this quote from Peter Enns: “The Christian faith has as its center piece a beaten, tortured, and crucified king. But, here’s the thing. If you wanted to create a religion at any time in history – this would probably not to be your first move. I mean, who’s going to believe this stuff?” So, Paul, the Gospel writers and others had to figure out the “unbelievable” using the historically available Jewish worldview they shared. So, a combination of blood atonement, a suffering Savior, victory over sin and/or spiritual powers, sacrificial obedience, etc were available and combined in such a way that made sense to (a few) Jews and quite a few more “Yahweh curious” gentiles. This was later expanded upon and combined with a metaphysics derived from Greek philosophy at first, and then a more individualistic Enlightenment view in the 16th -17th centuries, then on to now. The point is that people have tried to faithfully and thoughtfully “figure out” the cross for 2000 years using historically available categories. Some “work” better than others, given current circumstances. But, they all point to the divine rescue mission Jesus carries out to reconcile God and humanity. And not just to “save” my own little sin-sick soul from hell — but ultimately, all of creation. Phew! 2) I focus my attention on a Moltmannian view of a Crucified God — and the revelation of the self-giving love at the core of the divine. Then, I can use that to speak about how faith can be manifest in acts of love in response, and how the Spirit works in us by the power of love to shape our faith and actions. There’s more to it than that. But that’s plenty for now. I also use lots of poetry, metaphor and imagery — and try to avoid jargon.
Nick, I really appreciate this post. Like you, I don’t fall easily into niches; never have — especially when I could be categorized as a “Socialist Evangelical” in the 1980’s (not an easy place to be back then). Now I’m a mainline pastor, who finds much theological liberalism to be limp (as did the Niebuhrs), while Protestant conservativism is way too individualistic and groveling before an”angry” God. I must say, however, that as logically coherent as your argument is, it still leaves me somewhat “cold.” I crave a theology that “makes sense” in some ways, but also does not turn God into a person who is reducible to rational categories; a calculating homo economicus writ large, if you will. Still, I appreciate your efforts here to connect wrath and love in a way that “works,” but also leaves room for irreducible mystery.
I appreciate the reply. Before I respond, let me say I found your substack from a link Andrew Sullivan included to your Power of the Dog post. It was so refreshing to read your view on a film I also think was way overhyped and full of narrative holes. Anyway, speaking of narrative holes; when I talk about Atonement, I tend to stress 2 points. 1) the fact that there are numerous views on the cross in scripture is not surprising. I love this quote from Peter Enns: “The Christian faith has as its center piece a beaten, tortured, and crucified king. But, here’s the thing. If you wanted to create a religion at any time in history – this would probably not to be your first move. I mean, who’s going to believe this stuff?” So, Paul, the Gospel writers and others had to figure out the “unbelievable” using the historically available Jewish worldview they shared. So, a combination of blood atonement, a suffering Savior, victory over sin and/or spiritual powers, sacrificial obedience, etc were available and combined in such a way that made sense to (a few) Jews and quite a few more “Yahweh curious” gentiles. This was later expanded upon and combined with a metaphysics derived from Greek philosophy at first, and then a more individualistic Enlightenment view in the 16th -17th centuries, then on to now. The point is that people have tried to faithfully and thoughtfully “figure out” the cross for 2000 years using historically available categories. Some “work” better than others, given current circumstances. But, they all point to the divine rescue mission Jesus carries out to reconcile God and humanity. And not just to “save” my own little sin-sick soul from hell — but ultimately, all of creation. Phew! 2) I focus my attention on a Moltmannian view of a Crucified God — and the revelation of the self-giving love at the core of the divine. Then, I can use that to speak about how faith can be manifest in acts of love in response, and how the Spirit works in us by the power of love to shape our faith and actions. There’s more to it than that. But that’s plenty for now. I also use lots of poetry, metaphor and imagery — and try to avoid jargon.
Nick, I really appreciate this post. Like you, I don’t fall easily into niches; never have — especially when I could be categorized as a “Socialist Evangelical” in the 1980’s (not an easy place to be back then). Now I’m a mainline pastor, who finds much theological liberalism to be limp (as did the Niebuhrs), while Protestant conservativism is way too individualistic and groveling before an”angry” God. I must say, however, that as logically coherent as your argument is, it still leaves me somewhat “cold.” I crave a theology that “makes sense” in some ways, but also does not turn God into a person who is reducible to rational categories; a calculating homo economicus writ large, if you will. Still, I appreciate your efforts here to connect wrath and love in a way that “works,” but also leaves room for irreducible mystery.