GodPost

Stephen Finlan On Problems with Atonement

I’m writing a paper on the impact of modernism on doctrines of atonement and making my way through a few texts.

First book on my reading list is Stephen Finlan’s 2005 book, “Problems with Atonement: The Origins Of, And Controversy About, The Atonement Doctrine”.

Finlan graduated with a PhD in Pauline Theology, University of Durham, in 2004, focusing on the background and content of Paul’s cultic atonement metaphors. He’s now a research assistant for the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture at Drew University.

Stephen draws attention to a pattern of correction, rationalization and spiritualization that has dominated both scholarly and confessional discourse on atonement. He’s concerned that Hebrew, Gentile and later metaphors of atonement have been uncritically conflated and calls for a re-examination of life, death and resurrection through the lense of the doctrine of incarnation.

Sacrifice and Scapegoat

Finlan’s first chapter explores the depth of meaning found in the Hebrew and Gentile rites of sacrifice. He begins with sacrifice as gift, propitiation, an offering of the best to please and/or appease God. On another level Hebrew sacrifices were used as form of purification, releasing the life-force of the blood to restore order, cleanness to the temple and God’s people. Sacrifice came to be seen as a means of expiation, bringing forgiveness, dealing with sin. The Hebrew concept of ‘kippering’, translated into the English word ‘atonement’, is described as payoff, ransom, turning away potential retaliation.

Finlan provides a matter-of-fact description of the spiritualization process associated with the concept of sacrifice in Hebrew and other cultures. An early example of substitution, hinted at in Hebrew Scriptures, would be the replacement of human sacrifice with animal sacrifice. Moralizing interpretations insert moral and universal meanings into the sacrificial practices. Internalization of religion focuses on the attitudes of the sacrificer. Metaphorical use of cultic terms is found in Paul’s reference to the body as the temple. The most radical spiritualization is the complete rejection of sacrificial practice, a move seen in writing by Isaiah, Jeremiah and Hosea.

Finlan goes on to explore the expulsion rituals of the Hebrew scriptures and commonly found in Hittite, Greek and Mesopotamian societies. The scapegoat concept was used by these societies to transfer curse or sin onto the victim. Finlan stresses that the concept of scapegoat must be distinguished from the concept of sacrifice. Sacrifice, he reminds us, “has nothing to do with punishing the animal but with the purifying power that the lifeblood is thought to have”.

Paul’s Use of Metaphors

Finlan goes on to the heart of his PhD, Paul’s use of cultic metaphor. His thesis here is that Paul uses multiple metaphors and models to ullustrate the meaning of the death of Christ. Paul refers to Christ’s death in terms of sacrificial sin-sprinkling and sin-bearing scapegoat. He also appears to have made references to the Hellenistic rhetoric of nobly dying for his people (later seen in terms of martyrdom). He goes on to use social metaphors to describe the beneficial results of Christ’s death for believers: justification (from the legal court), reconciliation (diplomatic metaphor), and adoption (family metaphor), and ransom (freedom for slaves). Paul used many of these metaphors in the same sentence, focusing on the many meanings of the death of Jesus, rather than developing a systematic theology. It was in the combination of the metaphors that the concept of penal substitution began to emerge.

I like this quote from Finlan:

“In the interests of making the Gospel marketable, Paul poured the new wine into old conceptual forms, spiced with a dose of spiritualizing, and enlivened by the real spiritual experience that he and his fellows were having. But this means that some incompatible religious ideas were yoked together. Whatever could “preach” could stay; but this has caused confusions to later Christians”.

Buy your copy of Stephen Finlan’s Problems With Atonement online at Amazon.com

Atonement After Paul

Finlan provides an analysis of atonement doctrines developed in the early Church (Patristic theologians), medieval Church and Reformation movement.

Rescue Theories

Finlan classes together the Christus Victor and so-called ransom theories as the Rescue Theories - concepts of cosmic rescue and triumph over evil forces. Irenaeus sees Christ rescuing humanity by rescuing human nature itself. Origen of Alexandria sees the whole of life and teaching of Christ as saving. Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, is described as seeing salvation as a salvage and restoration job that emanates from the incarnation itself. Augustine combines a ransom theory (tricking the devil) with a judicial theory in which Christ takes the penalty for our sin.

Satisfaction Theory

Finlan writes that Anselm (11th century) constructed a theory based on the social structure of his time, providing a feudal structure to salvation. God, the offended Lord, must have compensation for the affront to his honor by sinful humanity.

Moral Influence Theory

Peter Abelard, not long after Anselm, rejected all ransom and satisfaction theories, focusing instead on the moral effect of Christ’s life and death on the person who honestly believes it. Abelard pointed out that the whole of Jesus’ life counted, not just the violent end.

Reformation Theories

Finlan explores the atonement theories developed by Luther and Calvin. He points to the doctrines of absolute depravity, universal guilt and a ‘horrifying transfer of divine wrath to the undeserving Son’ as monstrous teachings that have made Christianity unpalatable to believers.

I think this section is perhaps the weakest in Finlan’s book. Finlan gives us a conflated view of the voices of the Reformation, focusing largely on Luther, ignoring the large number of alternative voices of the time.

The Incarnation

Finlan is concerned that the primary Christian doctrine of the incarnation has been interpreted through secondary doctrines such as substitutionary atonement, rather than the other way around. He acknowledges the concern that the rejection of such secondary doctrines can lead to a wholesale rejection of all doctrine. He acknowledges that much of Paul’s writing points to the life and death and resurrection of Jesus in terms of atonement metaphors. Finlan hopes to convince his readers to read the rest of the Hebrew and Christian scriptures without imposing the ‘penal substitionary atonement’ model on them. He concludes with the thought that the early Christian doctrine of theosis may be a useful way ahead in developing a deep and useful understanding of Christ.

I’ll finish with a quote from a quote from Paul’s letter to the Corinthians (2 Cor 5:19):

“God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself”.

As I read the text around that statement, I’ll be reading with an appreciation of the many metaphors being used by Paul. I’ll also be looking to see what difference it makes to read through with the doctrine of incarnation as the lense.

1 Comment | Posted in » Doctrine

Relevant Church Doctrine In House Church Setting

The third instalment in a series on doctrine in the context of Pacific Parks, the house church I meet with each week.

Pacific Parks for four years has worked around the three core values of being relaxed, relational and relevant.

Founding members of Pacific Parks were aware of the difficulty many Australians have when first attending traditional worship. We identified cultural cringe factors for most Australians of our age and younger and undertook to develop a culture of gathering that did not feature ceremonial vestments, long sermons and hymn singing accompanied by organs. However our understanding of ‘relevance’ hopefully goes deeper than cultural preferences.

When we say ‘relevant’ we mean:

“We seek to make Jesus accessible to people, and seek to break down any barriers that might prevent people from knowing him personally. We value people, wanting them to discover and exercise their unique giftedness.”

As we developed our approach to being church in a number of new housing areas, we were deeply aware of the diversity we faced. There is no one culture on the north Gold Coast. Even though we had ‘postmodern’ and ‘emerging generations’ in our received mandate, we were very much aware that it would take several different approaches to connect people with the good news of Jesus.

Take music, for example. A number of our original members were embedded in the country music scene. Others were more into electronica and ambient music. Some enjoy singing praise and worship songs. Others don’t like singing in public at all. We have been tempted to develop formulas that will attract people from each of these cultures. What we’ve ended up doing though is focusing less on marketing, entertainment and ‘ambience’, and focusing more on relationship building that is uncluttered by programming.

We seek to make Jesus accessible to people, and seek to break down any barriers that might prevent people from knowing him personally.

Our value of accessibility is grounded in the doctrine of incarnation. We believe that God was in Christ, reconciling the world with Godself. As the Uniting Church Basis of Union says, our call is to be a fellowship of reconciliation, a body within which the diverse gifts of its members are used for the building up of the whole, an instrument through which Christ may work and bear witness to himself.

We believe Jesus to have lived as “God in the flesh” in the context of Roman-occupied Palestine. Looking at Jesus’ ministry we see a range of relationships. Jesus camped out and went fishing with the disciples. He dined in with wealthy society leaders. He took part in public expressions of worship in synagogues and in the temple. In all of these situations the focus was not on form. The focus was on accessibility.

With accessibility in mind we have let go our preoccupation with purpose-built church buildings, choosing instead to meet in places where people naturally gather. We meet in parks, homes, cafes and taverns, and at times in church buildings.

The doctrine of the incarnation tells us that God was prepared to become embedded in a small backwater local culture, without expecting instant success.

As frustrating as this has turned out to be, we have made a commitment to growing a relationship at a time.

One of the temptations of working with a commitment to accessibility is “fear of offending”. We have the challenge of presenting the good news of reconciliation in a way that leads to people living lives in harmony with the values of the Kingdom of God. We ourselves are confronted by the priorities of Jesus. We shouldn’t be surprised when others take offence at Jesus’ teaching. However we want to avoid offending people with cultural insensitivity or arrogance.

We value people, wanting them to discover and exercise their unique giftedness.

Our valuing of people is founded in a Christian doctrine of the human person, traditionally referred to as “Doctrine of Man”.

Most approaches to the Christian doctrine of the human person begin with creation - the belief that the human is created by God to be an expression of God’s character earthed in a environment of fragility and uncertainty. The inherent value of each person is grounded in the value given by God’s gift of life. As a community of faith we are challenged to see each person in our wider community as an expression of the image of God.

We believe that God has given us the capacity to continue discerning the depths of God’s call as a community, and also as persons in community. As Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 13, “Now I see in part, then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.” In our shared life-transforming interaction with God’s Spirit, we are equipped to recognise what it means to be truly human in our own context.

As we connect with Jesus, God’s character in each person emerges. We are gifted with the opportunity to participate in God’s ongoing act of creation. We can become tempted to interpret this challenge by filling out skills inventories to determine our contribution to weekly church life. The deeper challenge is to daily discern the ways in which we are called to live out an incarnational presence in our unique sphere of influence.

No Comments | Posted in » Doctrine

Relaxed Church Doctrine for House Church

Pacific Parks Uniting began with a group of people who were keen to explore an alternative to the hectic pace of a church addicted to excellent performance. We’d been in churches that measured effectiveness by the number of people attending Sunday worship and midweek on-campus programs. We’d also been in churches with a focus on correctness, in which newcomers were carefully tested for right belief and respectable lifestyles.

We were committed to exploring an alternative approach to church that would equip its members to live out radical discipleship largely in the context of everyday relationships. Our gatherings would need to inspire and support people to engage with real life, seven days a week.
To summarise this approach, we started describing ourselves as “Relaxed Church”.

We come together in a welcoming, warm, encouraging and inclusive way.

The primary doctrine that we affirm here is the doctrine of grace.

Serene Jones describes a similar connection between the doctrine of grace and the ryhthms of a church’s life in her article, “Graced Practices: Excellence and Freedom in the Christian Life”, found in Practicing Theology: Beliefs and Practices in Christian Life, edited by Mirsolav Volf and Dorothy Bass, 2002. Jones is a theologian with membership in a United Church of Christ congregation in New Haven.

Serene Jones describes the ambitious vision-casting process developed by a ‘Millennial committee’. As they presented their plans to the congregations they found people becoming tired, overwhelmed and without enthusiasm. In response, the committee went back and explored the benefits of the good news of Jesus Christ. They unpacked what it meant to live out of justification and sanctification. They revisited the Scriptures and found there the narrative of God’s grace, from creation through to the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. The congregation’s leaders then began to explore what it would mean to develop gatherings that would be good news to their participants. Practicing the sabbath, grounded in the freedom of justification, became a gift to people already exhausted by hectic lifestyles.

So what would living in the grace of God look like for a new network of house churches? Pacific Parks began with the grace-imbued practices of Sabbath and hospitality. Instead of beginning with running worship services, we started with leadership meetings on Sunday mornings in each others homes, over a barbecue. We moved to public parks and started inviting friends and family. Our first purchase as a church was a large catering barbecue. We followed that up with sports equipment.

At first some of us felt a little anxious, perhaps guilty, about missing out on Sunday morning worship. We weren’t busy ‘running Church’. There were no rosters to fill. There were no offerings to take up and count as we had already made arrangements for direct debit giving. There was no ‘order of service’ and no post-event evaluation. It was strange for people who had spent all their lives ‘doing church’.

We discovered that our energy was now available to focus on expressing the hospitality of God to those around us. God brought into our circles people who would not have fitted neatly into a church committed to excellence. Like the woman with only one outfit for wearing in public who was anxious that her grandson was sipping on a drink during a worship time. We pointed out that most of us had a cup of coffee in our hands. The couple who were living together who joined one of our house churches, later holding their wedding in one of our homes and regularly bringing their extended family and network of friends. The young people who struggled with multiple addictions, who time and time again found themselves responding to God’s grace.

We seek to be flexible, accepting and authentic, creatively responding to others.

As in the relational approach to Church, our relaxed approach is connected with our perception of how God dynamically relates to the world. We believe that God interacts with the world as it is, continually helping creation respond in tune with God’s call. We don’t believe that God has a blueprint that we must discover and follow slavishly. In the life of Jesus we see constant examples of responding to people as they are, in the settings in which they live, using the elements of each scenario.

Earlier this month I met with a family network for a baptism in the park. When the parents of the boy being baptised asked if we had to hold the service in church on Sunday I explained that the Uniting in Worship regulations did specificy that baptism should be held after a sermon during a Sunday worship service. But because Pacific Parks was committed to developing flexible and creative approaches to church, we could say yes to Saturday morning in the local park. Besides, we didn’t have a church service on Sunday. Neither did we have a church building to hold it in!

So where’s the doctrine here? The Uniting Church in Australia does have well developed doctrine around the connection between word and sacrament, designed to ensure that baptism is a corporate experience of the wider Church and not just an individual rite of passage. In planning the baptism service one of my first priorities was to ascertain who the congregation of the faithful would be in this case. I had two couples from Pacific Parks Uniting who would be affirming a commitment to nurture faith in the child and his family. The parents themselves were keen to express their own emerging faith. His parents, sister and brother-in-law were Catholics and were able to participate meaningfully. For others it was a case of being welcome, included and encouraged to explore faith for themselves.

We have deliberately sought to delineate between primary doctrines of Christian faith and more practical doctrines that are not essential in these settings. For the sake of authenticity and consistency we seek to develop shared experiences of faith that are consistent with the Uniting Church services of baptism and communion. However, we sense no obligation to maintain the traditional or even contemporary ‘order of service’ for worship. For example, we rarely sing together. In our earlier days together we did. We bought a keyboard and practiced hard for our corporate gatherings. But as we moved into separate house churches we discovered that not everyone finds singing helpful in connecting with God. We came to see singing as a practice of faith that would be used when appropriate.

We have struggled with issues of sexuality and how they apply to doctrine. The Uniting Church Assembly in 2003 clarified that each Presbytery had the capacity to ordain people on a case by case basis. As a local leadership team we found it impossible to develop a shared understanding of how that related to doctrine. Was the Church’s traditional doctrine relating to homosexuality a primary affirmation, requiring a Christian to be heterosexual or live a lifetime of celibacy? Or was it possible that God was more flexible and welcoming than the Church had allowed for over time?

The next post will focus on doctrine in relation to being ‘Relevant Church’.

No Comments | Posted in » Doctrine