The Atonement: God’s Nature

The following are some of my thoughts on this week’s Sabbath School Study, Lesson 1, God’s Nature: The Basis of Atonement.

“The subject of the Atonement is absolutely central in Christian theology; and it is directly related to that of the nature of God. Each and every interpretation of the Atonement is most closely connected with some conception of the essential meaning of Christianity, and reflects some conception of the Divine nature. Indeed, it is in some conception of the nature of God that every doctrine of the Atonement has its ultimate ground…”¹ [Emphasis mine.]

What this says to me is that how one interprets and views the Atonement is colored by his or her understanding of God’s nature. Not only that, but his or her understanding of God’s nature is itself colored by how he or she understands the Atonement.

Is the above statement true? I believe it is. If a person believes that law-based justice is the overriding nature of God, it is easy to see the Atonement as merely a legal transaction. If the Atonement is primarily about satisfying legal demands, it becomes much easier to see God’s nature in forensic and judicial terms.

On the other hand, if a person believes instead that God’s nature is primarily one of love based relationships, is becomes difficult to accept any kind of legal and substitutionary metaphor in the Atonement, but rather see it more as a demonstration of God’s love. If the Atonement is viewed primarily as demonstration of love, it becomes much easier to interpret everything about God through that lens.

What is being described is a case of cyclical dependency. If we are not careful, the more we study the Atonement, the more narrow and rigid our mindset can become both in regards to the Atonement and of God’s nature. When we become rigid, we tend to become intolerant. When we become intolerant, we become unloving. When we become unloving, we defeat the whole purpose of the Atonement.

The two perspectives I mentioned a few paragraphs ago are termed, respectively, as the objective and subjective views on the Atonement. The former is attributed to Anselm (1033-1109). The latter is attributed to Abelard (1079-1142). As you might guess, the one held to by most Christians today is the objective view.^{2, 3}

Aulen argues that neither is the view held to by the early Christians. (From the dates of Anselm and Abelard, it looks like possibly up to the first 1,000 years of Christianity.) He puts forth the idea of a classical view on the Atonement, which he calls the dramatic view of the Christus Victor.⁴ From the broad descriptions I’ve read, he seems to have some strong points in favor of this view. I might even suggest that as Seventh-day Adventists, our Great Controversy metanarrative might fit the Christus Victor perspective better than the more common perspectives. I’ve only begun to read his historical survey, so I cannot comment much more than this.

I think the key for the set of studies this final quarter of 2008 is to try to open up our perspectives to examine other points of view and to engage ideas with which we don’t agree in a respectful, courteous, and loving way. As finite beings, we need to realize that when we attempt to make sense out of and understand God, we are going to encounter paradoxes (what Aulen terms dualisms⁵). We must learn to live with both/and perspectives rather than either/or.

I believe God speaks to each person in ways that they best understand. For some, one perspective on the Atonement may work better than another, while for a different set of people, the one that works for the other may not work at all. We must be willing to at least try to see things from other perspectives, and to disagree agreeably. God does not change, but our perspectives and experience do change. I believe God accommodates our changes and reveals Himself in ways that are best at each stage of our journey.

Finally, as we study the Atonement this quarter, I believe whatever it means must translate into practical significance. If it doesn’t, then perhaps it isn’t as important as we’ve been led to believe; or, we missed something really key; or, the meaning of the Atonement we have isn’t quite right.

For further studies and commentary on this week’s lesson, I highly recommend the audio and study guide at Good Word.

_______________

¹Aulen, Gustaf. Christus Victor: An Historical Study of the Three Main Types of the Idea of Atonement, WIPF an STOCK Publishers, 2003 edition. p. 13.

²ibid., pp. 1-3.

³Knight, George R. The Cross of Christ: God’s Work for Us, Review and Herald Publishing Association, 2008. pp. 21-22.

⁴Aulen. pp. 4-7.

⁵Aulen, pp. 4, 11.