Sunday, April 01, 2007

crucifixus etiam pro nobis




I am always energized by the principal liturgy for The Sunday of the Passion: Palm Sunday. Attendance is invariably good, plus we combine the two best-attended services into one, so the church feels packed, and there's nothing that warms a parish priest's heart quite like a packed church. In California, we're fortunate to have access to a virtually limitless supply of palm branches (palm trees are a prevalent volunteer "weed" in my neighborhood), so we let ourselves go overboard in decorating the church; the picture at the top of this post only tells part of the story. We involve the children of the parish in some high-visual impact ways during the procession from the Guild Hall, down the sidewalk, and into the church. Our music director hired some string players to help accompany the chorus "Behold the Lamb of God" from Messiah as the offertory anthem. For some reason, the Taize chant "Jesus, remember me" that we sang during communion was particularly moving this year. I like Palm Sunday.

Of course, the power of the experience is built into the very structure of the rite. We begin in a party mood, outside of what we consider sacred space, in an atmosphere of controlled chaos. Cued by hand bells, we sing "Hosanna in the highest" several times while the palm branches are being distributed. The ancient hymn traditionally associated with this occasion, "All glory, laud, and honor" is set to a stirring tune that is easy to sing. And who doesn't love a parade? The people enter the church, still singing, but now accompanied by a majestic organ.

Then, just as our festivity feels like it's hitting a peak, we are gobsmacked by the Holy Week collect that talks about "the way of the cross" becoming "the way of life and peace." We sing Psalm 22 with the repeated refrain, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" We read the Passion narrative (from Luke this year) in a semi-dramatic fashion, with different parts assigned to different voices. The same lips that were shouting "Hosanna" a few minutes earlier are now shouting "Crucify him!" It's a case of liturgical whiplash.


So now we enter Holy Week, with our thoughts focusing on the cross of Christ. On Friday, we'll read the Passion again, this time from St John's version. Earlier today I ran across this item concerning some remarks made by the Dean of St Alban's, the Very Revd Jeffrey John. (Dr John, you may recall, was designated to become Bishop of Reading in 2003, but was persuaded by the Archbishop of Canterbury to decline the appointment in light of the controversy raised by the fact that he is in a long-term partnered relationship with another man.)

You can read the piece for yourself; I won't quote from it extensively. But Dr John challenges the notion that theologians call the "penal substitutionary atonement," which understands the death of Jesus on the cross as the offering of an innocent victim on behalf of sinful human beings, satisfying the just wrath of a holy God. Jesus dies on the cross, so those who put their faith in him are spared the natural consequences of their sins--eternal separation from God. Of this, Dr John says, "This is repulsive as well as nonsensical. It makes God sound like a psychopath. If a human behaved like this we'd say that they were a monster." He believes Christian preachers should emphasize themes of "love" and "truth" as they pertain to God, and lay aside any notion of "wrath" or "punishment."

As you might imagine, I believe it was both a theological and a pastoral mistake for Jeffrey John to make these remarks. But I also need to acknowledge that I am not without a good degree of empathy for his position. The fact is that the penal-substitutionary view is only one theory of the atonement (how it is that we are saved by what Jesus did). It draws on an abundance of scriptural imagery to flesh it out and give it heft. Its primary classical exponent is St Anselm, who served as Archbishop of Canterbury at the turn of the Twelfth Century, but it was picked up by the Reformers and has been a mainstay of Evangelical theology, both Anglican and otherwise.

But there are other equally biblical and equally plausible theories of the atonement, and to the extent that this may be Dean John's point, then he indeed has a point. As C. S. Lewis wisely observes in his classic Mere Christianity, none of the possible theories can alone account for the mystery of the atonement, and none have ever been declared official dogma by the Church. In fact, they need one another, even though they cannot be neatly reconciled, and appear to contradict one another in certain ways.

As for the love of God versus the wrath of God--this is just one in a long series of polarities that comprise the truth of the gospel. (Just to name a few: God is one and God is three, Jesus is divine and Jesus is human, salvation requires faith [Paul] and salvation requires deeds [James], prayer is "art" and prayer is "craft," faith is individual ["I believe"] and faith is communal ["we believe"]). The object of the game is to maintain the tension in the line between the two poles, the two ends of the spectrum. The temptation is always to resolve the apparent contradiction in favor of one and at the other's expense. This is precisely how we fall into error, into--yes-- heresy.

The wrath of God is not an appealing concept, and one can make a case that it has been overblown at some times within the tradition of Christian preaching and catechesis. But just because it's difficult doesn't mean we can cast it aside. Quite the contrary; it is the difficult parts of the faith that demand our closest attention and deepest struggle. If the historical development of Christian thought shows us anything, it is that we do the truth no service by resolving apparent contradictions too hastily or too cleanly. Deep truth--meta-truth--emerges from a sustained struggle, earnest wrestling, with notions that appear to be irreconcilable.

Jeffrey John's mistake is not in calling us to a richer understanding of the cross of Christ than the penal-substitutionary atonement, viewed in one dimension. It is in yielding to the omnipresent temptation to relax the tension between the poles. When that happens, both ends collapse.

8 comments:

Ann said...

The collision of all these ideas are what deepens my sense of mystery. The penal substitution theory does not really work for me but I know when I was chaplain at the VA it was what really spoke to those who had killed in war. God who walks the journey and suffers as we suffer - helps me to make it through life. Other theories "work" at different times. So thanks for the post.

Anonymous said...

May I beat a deadhorse and point out how Kierkegaardian this is? And you know I mean that as a compliment. It is perhaps the only way in which you could be rightly accused of being post-modern (also a compliment)!
-teu filho

Chuck Blanchard said...

I have been struggling (as a lay member of the TEC) with atonement) as a project for Lent--inspired by tchapter 4 of Mere Christianity that you reference in your post. I post some thoughts on my own blog, of which this is the gist:

To me the challenge is this: I believe in a loving God who through Jesus Christ has, by Grace, offered salvation from sin and death. Why would this loving God demand a sacrifice as the price of this Grace? Could God not have offered us the grace of salvation without the Cross? After all, we did nothing to serve the grace that results from the crucifixion of Christ, so what is the reason for the Cross? With or without the Cross, the Grace is equally undeserved and unearned.

I am beginning to wonder whether the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross was not because God required this death as an atonement for our sins, but because we required it.

At the time of Christ's crucifixion, humankind could only imagine atonement through violent sacrifice. After all, the violent sacrifice of an animal was the means of atonement in both the Jewish and Pagan worlds in the First Century. The only way to break us out of this cycle of scapegoating and sacrifice was for God to make the ultimate sacrifice of his Son. And God knew that the only way to seize our attention and have us commit to the new way of living by love described by both Jesus and Paul was by the Cross--the violent sacrifice of the innocent and divine Son of God.

In other words, the loving God could by his grace alone have reconciled us with no atonement and no sacrifice, but we could only have hope of accepting this grace if God took the additional and astounding step of putting his Son on the Cross. God did not demand such a sacrifice. We did. And I can think of no more loving act.

To me the challenge is this: I believe in a loving God who through Jesus Christ has, by Grace, offered salvation from sin and death. Why would this loving God demand a sacrifice as the price of this Grace? Could God not have offered us the grace of salvation without the Cross? After all, we did nothing to serve the grace that results from the crucifixion of Christ, so what is the reason for the Cross? With or without the Cross, the Grace is equally undeserved and unearned.

I am beginning to wonder whether the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross was not because God required this death as an atonement for our sins, but because we required it.

At the time of Christ's crucifixion, humankind could only imagine atonement through violent sacrifice. After all, the violent sacrifice of an animal was the means of atonement in both the Jewish and Pagan worlds in the First Century. The only way to break us out of this cycle of scapegoating and sacrifice was for God to make the ultimate sacrifice of his Son. And God knew that the only way to seize our attention and have us commit to the new way of living by love described by both Jesus and Paul was by the Cross--the violent sacrifice of the innocent and divine Son of God.

In other words, the loving God could by his grace alone have reconciled us with no atonement and no sacrifice, but we could only have hope of accepting this grace if God took the additional and astounding step of putting his Son on the Cross. God did not demand such a sacrifice. We did. And I can think of no more loving act.

The full link to my blog posting is:
http://aguyinthepew.blogspot.com/2007/03/atonement-guy-in-pew-struggles-with.html

Dan Martins said...

From Sue Grisham, via eMail, who was, for some unknown reason, prevented from posting a comment herself:

"Quite the contrary; it is the difficult parts of the faith that demand our closest attention and deepest struggle. If the historical development of Christian thought shows us anything, it is that we do the truth no service by resolving apparent contradictions too hastily or too cleanly."

I wait with increasing impatience to hear this done by preachers -- especially in reference to some of the Old Testament readings on animal sacrifice that are completely ignored in the sermons, as if they aren't important enough to address. Animal sacrifice is one topic that I believe should demand our closest attention and deepest struggle, because not to feeds into a theology of a bloodthirsty god who doesn't care about the animal creation. (It would be relatively simple to address, if there was at least differentiation between the temple cult and the Prophets. And that all were not of the same mind about what God wanted.)


My question that no one will touch is, "Does God desire mercy and not sacrifice, or does God desire sacrifice and not mercy?"


It doesn't matter to me what I think, or if there are some exceptions to the rule among a few who do address this issue. But it does matter to me what the majority isn't hearing a word about.

Ann said...

Thinking some more on this subject - since Jesus is God incarnate - there is something powerful about God being willing to suffer powerlessness - hanging on the cross and dying- not revealing the heavenly hosts - the armies of God - but the power found in absolute surrender to death.

Anonymous said...

Chuck Blanchard, I was moved by your comment, and I think you are onto something there: God did not require a blood sacrifice, we did.

But I think that we required it not just as an attention-getting device, but to point up the fact that Actions have Consequences. "The wage of sin is death."

I'm a little uncomfortable, though, with your pushing it all into a "past mindset." Is it not more that We are ridiculously squeamish than that They were so unenlightened as to only conceive of reconciliation through blood sacrifice?

Dan Berger

Chuck Blanchard said...

Dan Berger:

Thanks for your comments. I think they are both well taken. I want to first emphasize the C.S. Lewis point--atonement is real. Jesus died for our sins. My focus on the why is simply an effort to come to some greater understanding of what my faith is all about.

I definately agree that my original post is too time focused. I think that we demanded the sacrifice because of our human nature (which is the same today as it was 2000 years ago). In the past, this human nature manifested itself in the sacrificial culture, but it still manifests itself in other ways today. (Indeed, one thinker (Rene Girard) would argue that we would still be sacrifing animals today but for the Cross)

On your first point, I agree that there is more happening than an attention getting device, but I don't think it was to show us a lesson that the wages of sin was death. I think that the Hebrew scriptures had already made that point abundantly clear. But I do think that would would only accept the grace of salvation by the death of God's son.

By the way, have you noticed so much attention to atonement this year? I decided to make it the focus of my meditations during Lent, and there has been an explosion of very thoughtful work on the blogsphere by lots of Christians.

Chuck

Anonymous said...

Who knows where to download XRumer 5.0 Palladium?
Help, please. All recommend this program to effectively advertise on the Internet, this is the best program!