I apologize for not getting this post up sooner, but here it is. This post deals with the implications of the satisfaction theories I discussed last time and in addition, deals with the moral influence theory.
Satisfaction Theories, God’s Nature, and Hell
Hell has a much more prominent role in
the satisfaction theories of the atonement. God’s wrath is often seen as being
justly exercised through the conscious eternal torment of guilty sinners. Their
punishment is rightly deserved, and God rightly upholds the system of justice,
whether it operates on shame or guilt. Hell plays an important role in the
scope of the cosmic story. It exists, in penal substitution, for the punishment
of sins, and is easily recognized as a necessary part of the legal system of
punishment. Satisfaction theories make the distinction between good and evil
very evident. It wouldn’t do for God to punish those who just barely deserved
it. So God is the supremely good being, who cannot bear sin and is bound to
uphold the moral law, while we are evil, and we are saved from the fate we
rightfully deserve because God loves us enough to offer a way out through his
good grace. Our redemption does not really have much to do with any
relationship God wants to cultivate with us. Rather, it is a divine scheme to
save face in light of an imperfect creation.
Of course, many people look at this
picture of the world and are utterly horrified with its God, its system of
justification, its hell, and its view of humanity. Although love is claimed to
play a role in the story, love does not really seem to have a meaningful place.
George MacDonald does not mince words over this sort of story. He sees it as a
world dominated by “a miserable, puritanical martinet of a God, caring not for
righteousness, but for his rights; not for the eternal purities, but the goody
proprieties.”[1]
Not only is God’s love brought under
serious scrutiny, the idea of justice employed by the satisfaction theories
does not seem to fit with the notion of justice presented across the entire
canon. Perhaps most strikingly, in Zechariah 7:9 we are told, "This is
what the LORD Almighty says: `Administer true justice: show mercy and
compassion to one another.’” In Isaiah 30:18, we hear that "the LORD longs
to be gracious to you; he rises to show you compassion. For the LORD is a God
of justice." Note how justice has more to do with what is good than what
is right. Anselm claims that God cannot freely give out mercy because it would
oppose his justice, yet there are passages that explicitly define justice as
showing mercy!
Furthermore, the notion that God cannot bear
to be in the presence of sin is simply untenable in light of scripture. God is
constantly working in and through sinful people. God works through the nation
of Israel, not because they are a great people, but because they are weak and
worthless by standards of the world. And he works through sinful individuals. A
quick purview of the Bible yields a cast of liars, thieves, murders,
adulterers, and self-righteous pricks – all in the presence of God.
A huge problem with satisfaction
theories is the emphasis on dealing with sin in the form of a social contract
or legal transaction. Although we are urged to consider the gravity of sin by
those who seek to advance these theories – after all, a very real hell awaits
for those who are bound by sin! – it seems as though they themselves have
missed the gravity of sin by thinking that it can be dealt with through some
sort of system. Ultimately, I agree with MacDonald – we need to look elsewhere
to properly understand the atonement. Love and relationship need more emphasis
for the atonement to make sense.
Moral
Influence Theory
Peter Abelard developed the atonement
theory referred to as moral influence a generation after Anselm developed his
satisfaction theory. Abelard thinks it is wrong to constrain God with the
feudalistic system of honor, and he believes God is willing and able to extend
mercy at any time. The problem does not lie with God, the problem lies within
people. God does not need to find a loophole in the system; people must change
in order to receive grace.
The human predicament is brought on by a
corrupted mind and a misdirected will. The problem isn’t just that we do wrong,
sin occurs when we direct our will to do something wrong, knowing full well
what we are doing. Improper intent is the key ingredient in sin, perhaps more
so than wrong action. People must learn how to see clearly and how to direct
their wills towards the good.
Some see Abelard’s solution thusly: God
desires to be in right relationship with humankind, but humankind is too petty,
corrupt, and blind to see. So God becomes incarnate in the person of Jesus to
demonstrate the proper was to live. He shows us a new way to be human. By
following Jesus, people can affect change ∙within their lives, ∙by their own
actions. A problem with this view is that Jesus really doesn’t seem to do much.
A possible solution to this is by adding that Christ is not merely an example.
While the change is affected ∙within a person, the change is initiated ∙by God.
However, Abelard’s theory has not gained
as large of a following as satisfaction theories due to some shortcomings with it.
First, it does not present our predicament in a way that mirrors reality.
Anselm would be justified if he argued that Abelard’s theory does not account
for the gravity of sin. Evil is a more than actions carried out with malicious
intent, it extends to all negative occurrences. Lower degrees of responsibility
do not remove evil from the picture. Additionally, the critical role of intent
seems incapable of dealing with sins that span entire societies and people
groups. And even if Jesus’ work brings people into right relationship with God,
his theory lacks the sort of objectivity of satisfaction theories of the
atonement. Therefore, it has trouble really
answering the question of what Christ did.
Second, Christ needs to play a
continuing role in the salvation story. Abelard does not leave much for Jesus
to do after his exemplary life and death. So although Abelard makes important
steps towards a picture of God that is loving and relational, he does not seem
to take sin seriously enough. Perhaps the hell we are saved from under his
theory is not as hellish as reality demands.
No comments:
Post a Comment