Here at Campbell, we are in a worship series about the
atonement. Each week, we’ve been preaching on one of the various ideas about
how the atonement happens.
Having discussed three atonement theories (ransom,
recapitulation, and satisfaction), and with two more to go (substitution and
moral example), a few people have asked me if I’m going to share which theory
is the “right one.”
Or they’ve asked me which of the theories does the church
affirm as orthodox, or which one do United Methodists believe, or some
variation thereof.
One of the goals of doing this worship series was to show
that “the church” believes a diverse array of things, and that’s okay. Even
when it comes to a pretty important doctrine like the atonement, there is room
for discussion, room to ponder, room to think.
That’s because God is ultimately mysterious. I ought never
dare to claim that I understand fully and exactly just how God works. To do so
would border on blasphemy, in my opinion.
The atonement, the belief that humanity is reconciled to God
through Christ Jesus, is a foundational Christian belief. These various
theories we have been discussing are different answers to the question of “how”
this reconciliation happens. The fact that it happens is not in question; how
exactly God does it, is.
Nor do I want anyone to think that we are supposed to be
figuring out an answer once-and-for-all to this “how” question. This series
isn’t supposed to be a multiple choice quiz and at the end the correct answer
will be given. The journey into the mystery of God is a life-long endeavor, so
be comfortable in the ambiguity.
So we will take up another atonement theory on Sunday, the
“Substitution” theory. I’ll be honest with you - this is my least favorite of
all of them. But it is a part of our faith, so we’ll think, we’ll discuss,
we’ll ponder the mystery together. See y’all in church!
1 comment:
Good series, Andy. But I agree that the penal substitutionary atonement theory is the least among them and should be shelved.
Post a Comment