Right on, sister! This is an issue that I have been doing a lot of thinking & reading about lately. I argued in my 1999 QRT article on 19th century Quakerism that the "substitutionary" or "satisfaction" theory (i.e., "scapegoat theology"!) was already opposed by George Fox and Robert Barclay! For long I suspected in the back of my mind that the big problem with that theory was its assumption that punishment was the "proper" response to sin or crime; my recent reading for an essay on restorative justice clarified for me the alternative -- that repair of the harm and restoration of the broken community (just what you are suggesting) is the proper response to sin/crime! -- and also pointed me to several recent books that confirmed my own suspicions re the basic assumptions involved in atonement theories. Expect lots more from me on this when I get to chapter 6 of "Friends, God, & the Bible" -- I've just completed chapter 4 --

Vail
 

What a teaser from Vail. I can hardly wait. I wonder if we could get him to leak a few points to muse about. I have been doing some thinking along those lines myself (in spite of the pain thinking causes me). "Atonement" is one of those interesting issues that does not seem to have a settled and universal perception (check http://www.quakerinfo.com/atonement.shtml for a quick review) I recently made the following comment:
"I think that it is self-evident that people do stuff that hurts others and causes uh, bumps in the functioning of society. Throughout history, and anthropologists will tell us pre-history, society has had to deal with such "bumps" and or the individuals that cause them. Somewhere else, we or I talked about "guilt" as a social mechanism for helping such dealings. It is effective when not over used (how does a Jewish mother change a light bulb? "don't worry about me, go out and have fun, I'll just sit here in the dark.") When we do feel guilt for actions that cause harm, there has to be a mechanism for replacing or destroying that guilt. Often, repenting and making whatever amends are possible is enough, but sometimes not, and often there is no possibility of making amends, and a load of guilt can build up. How do we deal with it? Sometimes there is a catharsis if we receive punishment appropriate to the guilt. Sometimes we may feel that there is no punishment that could do the job. There are a number of theories about "atonement," but I think that it is less a requirement of God than it is a requirement of man; to feel that a price has been paid (most often with a feeling of gratitude and love for the one who paid it) and that we are free from that accumulated burden."
NOW I'm gonna hafta look into that "Paschal Lamb" thing and THIS time it's YOUR fault.

In His Love,
Nate
 

I do not mean to be inappropriate, but I have to be brutally candid. If what I say sounds offensive, please disregard it.

You are actually saying that Christ died in vain or that your sins are not that bad or even that you find it impossible that He should love you so much that He should lay down His life for you and yes, suffer injustice.

On the road to Emmaus He explained, using the whole Hebrew Scriptures, that He must die for many. There is massive evidence throughout the Bible. This is not some guy's interpretation.

Yes, I do believe the Spirit speaks. But are we being led by His Spirit or by our own minds or, worse, feelings? Jesus once said in Luke 18 that "God will grant justice to his chosen ones who cry to Him day and night." Because He IS just AND good, He punished Jesus in our place. That is called love. Do you love your children? Would you give your life for them? Would you suffer injustice for them? I'm sure you would. Why then should it be preposterous that Jesus should love us like that and suffer the supreme injustice for our sake and as an example?

What you call silly gospel is His gospel, the only gospel there is. Much as I admire George Fox, he was just a man. And he did not die for me.
 

Nate -- since you ask, I can't resist thinking out loud a bit on the issue! This may take more than one "comment"-- I'll make the first comment a bibliographical one. My jumping off point is my article, "Some Issues from 19th-Century Quakerism" in Quaker Religious Thought # 92 (Jan. 199)--I deal with atonement on pages 12 to 18 and 27 to 29. My jumping-off point there is Gustav Aulen's book CHRISTUS VICTOR.
My recent reading: Timothy Gorringe, GOD'S JUST VENGEANCE, clearly unveils the interconnection between Anselm's "satisfaction" theory and feudal ideas of justice, and also between Calvin's "substitution" theory and 16th-century concepts of law. All of these involve the underlying assumption that if you hurt someone, you deserve to be hurt in response ("an eye for an eye" etc.). J. Denny Weaver, THE NONVIOLENT ATONEMENT, unpacks in satisfying detail Aulen's "Christus Victor" type of atonement theory, and emphasizes that the victory which God in Christ won over the forces of evil was won by nonviolent means. S. Mark Heim, SAVED FROM SACRIFICE: A THEOLOGY OF THE CROSS, emphasizes the scapegoating motif -- sees this motif as underlying many biblical writings -- and sees the cross as turning scapegoating inside out or upside down -- pretty murky, with some sharp insights; recommended only if the scapegoating issue is significant for you. I am now reading R. Larry Shelton, CROSS & COVENANT -- at first glance a completely new take on atonement theory, tying in the cross and the atonement with the covenant theme (a major theme in biblical theology). More in my next comment.
Vail
 

Vail - Thank-you so much for the lucid comments. It helps so much to have an actual theologian on the team!I consider myself to be a sort of intuitive theologian and a narrative theologian, but as you know I always feel more confident when I have your affirmation.

Nate - Thanks for dropping in so often. I wish you would write me an e-mail on the back line. I have a couple of questions to ask you.

Friend Spock - just in case you check back.

I never choose to feel offense in response to honest, respectful, disagreement. You are welcome.

I use my blog for self-expression and hopefully inspiration, and not debate. I have never found debate to be effective or edifying.

But I have a few responses for you.

1 - about the blog title "silly poor gospel" I am not referring to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It is a reference to a quote from Margaret Fell. I refer you to the very first post in the first section of the archives which explains the title of the blog. It is a Quaker in-reference. When I strated this thing I never imagined so many non-quaker readers.


2- I am not saying that Christ died in vain. I think the cross was important and effective, I just do not believe that the purpose was punishment.

3-I sin as much as most people. - more than many. But I do not believe that I have ever committed a sin worthy of capital punishment. Neither have my children.

4-I have no trouble believing that Christ loves me. none at all. He was there when I went to sleep last night and there when I woke up this morning.

5-I think a good parent let's their children have the consequences of their own behavior.
 

I checked out the site that Nate referenced -- it turned out to be a summary of 5 types of atonement theory, by our dear Friend Arthur Roberts! These relate to Aulen's 3 types, as follows. Roberts' 2. (Christ satisfies Divine honor - Anselm) and 3. (Christ substitutes for us) are 2 varieties of Aulen's "Latin" type. Roberts' 4. (Moral influence - Peter Abelard)is the same as Aulen's "subjective/moral influence" type. Roberts' 1.(Christ ransoms us from the devil)is what Aulen calls an early (Church fathers) form of the "Classic" or "Christus Victor" type --"Its central theme is Atonement as a Divine conflice & victory; Christ -- Christus Victor -- fights against and triumphs over the evil powers of the world, the 'tyrants' under which mankind is in bondage and suffering, & in Him God reconciles the world to Himself" (Aulen, p. 4) Roberts' 5 (Jesus the Peacemaker - Phil Smith) sounds so much like Denny Weaver's "Narrative Christus Victor" that I wonder of Phil had read Weaver's book and adapted/adopted it for himself -- I'll have to email Phil & ask him!).
In any case, I have for long preferred Aulen's Christus Victor theology -- now I know much better why, and am delighted with how Denny Weaver (a Mennonite, teaching at a Church of the Brethren college!) fleshes this approach out -- it even ties in with the "Mighty Acts of God" interpretation of Biblical Theology which I have long subscribed to. An important aspect of that theology is that it brings in the Covenant theme -- the Mighty Acts of God are covenant-creating and covenant-renewing acts -- and that is where I think Larry Shelton's views might combine well with Weaver's to make a richer, fresher atonement theology -- that's what I want to keep working on. "God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation" (2 Cor. 5:19).
Everyone who has studied the issue in the past 60 years agrees that early Friends rejected the satisfaction/substitution view of the Atonement. I think I was the first to recognize clear elements of Christus Victor in George Fox's writings -- and of course the whole Lamb's War theme in early Quaker thought is a marvelous extension of Christus Victor. This also fits wonderfully in with Denny Weaver's "narrative Christus Victor" approach" -- like Fox & James Nayler, Weaver clearly sees that in the book of Revelation, "The slain lamb indicates a nonviolent confrontation between the reign of God and reign of evil, and a nonviolent victory via death and resurrection for the reign of God."

(I owe a debt of thanks to Sarah Hoggatt for clueing me in to Larry Shelton's book, which adds such a good dimension to "narrative Christus Victor.")

Evangelical Friends in the early 1800's -- especially Joseph John Gurney -- all strongly believed in the substitution theory, and believed it was the ONLY valid theory (I suspect Spock in his/her comment may be in the same situation?). And so (failing to recognize that early Friends had a different view!) they accused Elias Hicks & his friends (who may have held to the Moral Influence view) of "denying the atonement" -- with disastrous results, splitting Quakerism into two hostile camps.

Anything you want me to clarify or expand on, Nate?

Vail
 

Peggy --

You are a narrative theologian! Of course! Biblical theology IS narrative theology -- the narrative of the Mighty Acts of God!

I think that is what G. Fox and his friends intuitively recognized, and why, therefore, they refused to ossify their insights into a creed.
Through the 19th century, Hicksite Friends gradually moved away from the original Christ-centered commitment of Quakerism; Gurneyite Friends forgot the original anti-credal stance, changed narrative theology into propositional theology, and eventually came up with that humongous "Richmond Declaration of Faith" in 1887.
That's why we need to be Convergent!!!
Vail
 

So as a final note here.
This morning I followed a visitor back to the google search 'jesus scapegoat' and was amazed to find many many site specifically touting how wonderful it was to recognize Jesus as scapegoat. (go ahead and try it)

I am not aware of any Biblical reference to Christ as God's goat - only "the Lamb."

this sort of amazes me - I suppose it should not.
 

Vail, thank you much for your comments and concern. I think I will wait for your full exposition, though I am interested in that idea of "the cross turning scapegoating inside out," and "murky" fairly well describes my mind.
This is one of those areas of interest that are not essential to my faith that Peggy described as something to check into as opportunity allows in her previous blog post. I surely agree with her that restoration of community is the primary concern.

In His Love,
Nate
 

Peggy,
I would like to tell you how much this week's article touched me. This is a theological point I have been grapplig with for several years now and this is one of the most meaningful ways I have heard the subject addressed. More and more, as much as I deeply appreciate my years in Sunday school, I believe there is far more than the Western Protestant perspective I have been taught and this article helped give me a good piece of what I needed to turn the next corner and grapple with it some more. Thank you.

Sarah

P.S. Vail - I have Dr. Shelton's book too and will be reading it shortly. We should sit down and talk about it sometime. That would be fun. :o)
 

Peggy,

I'm not a Quaker (though my grandfather was!), but as a humble Episcopalian, I have never been able to make sense of the loving God/atonement paradox. It has always seemed to me that the crucifixion was an extravagant act of love, the proof of God's endless love for us, and that the Resurrection offers the assurance that this love will save us, flawed and broken as we are.

But what do I know? I'm hardly a theologian!

Judy
 

WOW. This resonates with me better than any explanation I have ever read on the subject.