In my mid Life I was an actively engaged Christian

[lawtig02]

FWIW, and as far as I can tell, this is a (pleasantly liberal) take on penal substitionary atonement, the prevailing (modern and Protestant) theory of atonement. While I think it's come under some criticism lately, you might check of Gustaf Aulen's book Christus Victor, which is the (short and) classic account of different historical theories of Christian atonement.

I first accessed those alternate theories through Richard Rohr but read Aulen last year. Amazing. And transformational, for me at least.

ETA -- This is a pretty good summary --

Christus Victor - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In his book, Aulén identifies three main types of atonement theories:

• The earliest was what Aulén called the "classic" view of the atonement, more commonly known as the ransom theory, or since Aulén's work, it is known sometimes as the "Christus Victor" theory: this is the theory that Adam and Eve made humanity subject to the Devil during the fall, and that God, in order to redeem humanity, sent Christ as a "ransom" or "bait" so that the Devil, not knowing Christ could not die permanently, would kill him, and thus lose all right to humanity following the resurrection.
• A second theory is the "Latin" or "objective" view, more commonly known as satisfaction theory, beginning with Anselmian satisfaction (that Christ suffered as a substitute on behalf of humankind, satisfying the demands of God's honor) and later developed by Protestants as penal substitution (that Christ is punished instead of humanity, thus satisfying the demands of justice so that God can justly forgive).
• A third is the "subjective" theory, commonly known as the moral influence view, that Christ's passion was an act of exemplary obedience which affects the intentions of those who come to know about it. This view was put forward in opposition to Anselm's view by Peter Abelard.

Aulén argues that the "classic view" was the predominant view of the early church for the first thousand years of church history, and was supported by nearly every Church Father including Irenaeus, Origen of Alexandria, and Augustine of Hippo, to name a few. A major shift occurred, Aulén says, when Anselm of Canterbury published his Cur Deus Homo around 1097 AD which marked the point where the predominant understanding of the atonement shifted from the classic view to the satisfaction view in the Roman Catholic Church, and later within Protestantism. The Eastern Orthodox Church still holds to the atonement view put forward by Irenaeus called "recapitulation", wherein Jesus became what we are so that we could become what he is.

* * *

The Christus Victor theory is becoming increasingly popular with both paleo-orthodox evangelicals because of its connection to the early Church fathers, and with liberal Christians and peace churches such as the Anabaptist Mennonites because of its subversive nature, seeing the death of Jesus as an exposure of the cruelty and evil present in the worldly powers that rejected and killed him, and the resurrection as a triumph over these powers. As Marcus Borg writes,

for [the Christus Victor] view, the domination system, understood as something much larger than the Roman governor and the temple aristocracy, is responsible for the death of Jesus [...] The domination system killed Jesus and thereby disclosed its moral bankruptcy and ultimate defeat.

The Mennonite theologian J. Denny Weaver, in his book The Nonviolent Atonement and again recently in his essay "The Nonviolent Atonement: Human Violence, Discipleship and God", traces the further development of the Christus Victor theory (or as he calls it "Narrative Christus Victor") into the liberation theology of South America, as well as feminist and black theologies of liberation.

 

[Batt Boy]

I first accessed those alternate theories through Richard Rohr but read Aulen last year. Amazing. And transformational, for me at least.

both transformational for me as well. still, as I've aged, I find myself returning to the ritual of church, at least traditional worship service. Can't really explain it, but I like the cadence. For 50 min only.

 

[breepf]

I first accessed those alternate theories through Richard Rohr but read Aulen last year. Amazing. And transformational, for me at least.

I'm unfamiliar with Rohr. Do you have a recommended book or anything?

 

[Wheels81]

I’m a Christian, although I’ve fallen off a bit recently because I find it hard to be associated with other “Christians” whose beliefs don’t seem to mirror Christ’s teachings.

I think Christ, as reflected in the Bible, lived in a way that we should all try to emulate. I don’t believe that he died for my sins. That is premised on the ancient belief that there had to be some sort of blood sacrifice to appease God. I’ve often thought that, if I were God, why would it please me that you just killed a goat to try to make me happy? What would make me happy is if you try to be a decent, loving person. If you want to sacrifice something, sacrifice your selfish, unloving inclinations. So, I don’t see the need for Jesus to have been sacrificed for me. In fact, if God is going to judge me, I want to be judged by what I’ve done or failed to do. Saying that Jesus has already saved me makes it too easy.

 

[breepf]

I’m a Christian, although I’ve fallen off a bit recently because I find it hard to be associated with other “Christians” whose beliefs don’t seem to mirror Christ’s teachings.

I think Christ, as reflected in the Bible, lived in a way that we should all try to emulate. I don’t believe that he died for my sins. That is premised on the ancient belief that there had to be some sort of blood sacrifice to appease God. I’ve often thought that, if I were God, why would it please me that you just killed a goat to try to make me happy? What would make me happy is if you try to be a decent, loving person. If you want to sacrifice something, sacrifice your selfish, unloving inclinations. So, I don’t see the need for Jesus to have been sacrificed for me. In fact, if God is going to judge me, I want to be judged by what I’ve done or failed to do. Saying that Jesus has already saved me makes it too easy.

Atonement as moral influence!

 

[lawtig02]

I'm unfamiliar with Rohr. Do you have a recommended book or anything?

So, so many, but these are my three favorite --

 

[Huh?]

I am frequently struck with the notion that we are all currently experiencing heaven...

 

[breepf]

So, so many, but these are my three favorite --

Thanks for sharing these.

Just glancing at his wikipedia page, am I crazy or does his theory of atonement seems to edge towards Christus Victor?

Rohr instead states that "I believe that Jesus' death on the cross is a revelation of the infinite and participatory love of God, not some bloody payment required by God's offended justice to rectify the problem of sin. Such a story line is way too small and problem-oriented."​

​

Christus Victor, but with important differences: unlike some of the patristics, Rohr more fully integrates your typical Christian into the unfolding of God's cosmic drama. According to Rohr, we are not merely witnesses, but participants in the triumph over death.

 

[05C40]

Without belaboring the matter, I absolutely despise the commercialization that Christanity has undergone in my life.

 

[lawtig02]

Thanks for sharing these.

Just glancing at his wikipedia page, I am crazy or does his theory of atonement seems to edge towards Christus Victor?

Rohr instead states that "I believe that Jesus' death on the cross is a revelation of the infinite and participatory love of God, not some bloody payment required by God's offended justice to rectify the problem of sin. Such a story line is way too small and problem-oriented."​

​

The difference, though, is that Rohr makes Christians more fully-fledged participants in the unfolding of God's cosmic drama and triumph over death.

I think that's fair. I've posted this before, but this is probably my favorite concise Rohr writing, from his daily meditations --

Leviticus 16 describes the ingenious ritual from which our word “scapegoating” originated. On the Day of Atonement, a priest laid hands on an “escaping” goat, placing all the sins of the Jewish people from the previous year onto the animal. Then the goat was beaten with reeds and thorns and driven out into the desert. And the people went home rejoicing, just as European Christians did after burning a supposed heretic at the stake, or white Americans did after the lynching of black men. Whenever the “sinner” is excluded, our ego is delighted and feels relieved and safe. It sort of works, but only for a while. Usually the illusion only deepens and becomes catatonic, blind, and repetitive—because of course, scapegoating did not really work to eliminate the evil in the first place.

Jesus became the scapegoat to reveal the universal lie of scapegoating. Note that John the Baptist said, “Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin [singular] of the world” (John 1:29). It seems “the sin of the world” is ignorant hatred, fear, and legitimated violence.

The Gospel is a highly subversive document. It painstakingly illustrates how the systems of both church and state (Caiaphas and Pilate) conspired to condemn Jesus. Throughout most of history, church and state have both sought plausible scapegoats to carry their own shame and guilt.

Jesus became the sinned-against one to reveal the hidden nature of scapegoating and so that we would see how wrong people in authority can be—even religious important people (see John 16:8-11 and Romans 8:3). The scapegoat mechanism largely operates in the unconscious; people do not know what they are doing. Scapegoaters do not know they are scapegoating, but they think they are doing a “holy duty for God” (John 16:2). You see why inner work, shadow work, and honest self-knowledge are all essential to any healthy religion.

In worshiping Jesus as the scapegoat, Christians should have learned to stop scapegoating. We too could be utterly wrong about choosing victims, just as high priest and king, Jerusalem and Rome—the highest levels of authority—were utterly wrong about Jesus. Power itself is not a good guide, yet for many, if not most people, authority soothes their anxiety and relieves their own responsibility to form a mature conscience.

Millions of soldiers have given their only lives by believing the lies of Genghis Khan, Napoleon, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Hitler, to name a few. The vast majority of violence in history has been sacralized violence. Members of ISIS probably believe they are doing God’s will. The Ku Klux Klan uses the cross as their symbol!

With God on our side, our violence becomes necessary and even “redemptive violence.” But there is no such thing as redemptive violence. Violence doesn’t save; it only destroys in both short and long term. Jesus replaced the myth of redemptive violence with the truth of redemptive suffering. He showed us on the cross how to hold the pain and let it transform us, rather than pass it on to the others around us.

 

[breepf]

I think that's fair. I've posted this before, but this is probably my favorite concise Rohr writing, from his daily meditations --

Leviticus 16 describes the ingenious ritual from which our word “scapegoating” originated. On the Day of Atonement, a priest laid hands on an “escaping” goat, placing all the sins of the Jewish people from the previous year onto the animal. Then the goat was beaten with reeds and thorns and driven out into the desert. And the people went home rejoicing, just as European Christians did after burning a supposed heretic at the stake, or white Americans did after the lynching of black men. Whenever the “sinner” is excluded, our ego is delighted and feels relieved and safe. It sort of works, but only for a while. Usually the illusion only deepens and becomes catatonic, blind, and repetitive—because of course, scapegoating did not really work to eliminate the evil in the first place.

Jesus became the scapegoat to reveal the universal lie of scapegoating. Note that John the Baptist said, “Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin [singular] of the world” (John 1:29). It seems “the sin of the world” is ignorant hatred, fear, and legitimated violence.

The Gospel is a highly subversive document. It painstakingly illustrates how the systems of both church and state (Caiaphas and Pilate) conspired to condemn Jesus. Throughout most of history, church and state have both sought plausible scapegoats to carry their own shame and guilt.

Jesus became the sinned-against one to reveal the hidden nature of scapegoating and so that we would see how wrong people in authority can be—even religious important people (see John 16:8-11 and Romans 8:3). The scapegoat mechanism largely operates in the unconscious; people do not know what they are doing. Scapegoaters do not know they are scapegoating, but they think they are doing a “holy duty for God” (John 16:2). You see why inner work, shadow work, and honest self-knowledge are all essential to any healthy religion.

In worshiping Jesus as the scapegoat, Christians should have learned to stop scapegoating. We too could be utterly wrong about choosing victims, just as high priest and king, Jerusalem and Rome—the highest levels of authority—were utterly wrong about Jesus. Power itself is not a good guide, yet for many, if not most people, authority soothes their anxiety and relieves their own responsibility to form a mature conscience.

Millions of soldiers have given their only lives by believing the lies of Genghis Khan, Napoleon, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Hitler, to name a few. The vast majority of violence in history has been sacralized violence. Members of ISIS probably believe they are doing God’s will. The Ku Klux Klan uses the cross as their symbol!

With God on our side, our violence becomes necessary and even “redemptive violence.” But there is no such thing as redemptive violence. Violence doesn’t save; it only destroys in both short and long term. Jesus replaced the myth of redemptive violence with the truth of redemptive suffering. He showed us on the cross how to hold the pain and let it transform us, rather than pass it on to the others around us.

Thanks for this. I've got two thoughts, neither of which is particularly insightful. First, this talk of scapegoating obviously makes me think of Rene Girard, and so it's interesting to see these ideas take a, let us say, leftward religious turn. For another such turn, I went to my bookshelves to find Arnold Eisen's Taking Hold of Torah, which makes the argument that ritual in Levitucus was emulative: it gives practitioners leave to participate in a world of art, a world where things can be made right; when the ritual ends, though, we're back in the real world, but with the example of the ritual to help us act right.

That being said, we should note that Rohr and Eisen are likely operating with different definitions of sin. Christianity often pushes for moral notions of right and wrong, good and evil. But Jewish concepts of sin rarely hit those rarefied registers and, for that reason, the scapegoat could never be such a dire matter. Sin is to merely "fall short"--we all fuck up. In the systems of sacrifice, sin is pollution; it is disorder in the orderly world that God has created. We accumulate such sin through actions that are not immoral at all--evacuating our bowels, ejaculating, menstruating. As luck would have it, animal blood is, in the words of Jacob Milgrom, a ritual detergent for sin.

Second, the idea of redemptive suffering puts me in the mind of James Baldwin's short story "Sonny's Blues." Baldwin was a child preacher and, in that story, he argues that art is taking the suffering that life affords us and making it more like us.

 

[Batt Boy]

I think that's fair. I've posted this before, but this is probably my favorite concise Rohr writing, from his daily meditations --

Leviticus 16 describes the ingenious ritual from which our word “scapegoating” originated. On the Day of Atonement, a priest laid hands on an “escaping” goat, placing all the sins of the Jewish people from the previous year onto the animal. Then the goat was beaten with reeds and thorns and driven out into the desert. And the people went home rejoicing, just as European Christians did after burning a supposed heretic at the stake, or white Americans did after the lynching of black men. Whenever the “sinner” is excluded, our ego is delighted and feels relieved and safe. It sort of works, but only for a while. Usually the illusion only deepens and becomes catatonic, blind, and repetitive—because of course, scapegoating did not really work to eliminate the evil in the first place.

Jesus became the scapegoat to reveal the universal lie of scapegoating. Note that John the Baptist said, “Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin [singular] of the world” (John 1:29). It seems “the sin of the world” is ignorant hatred, fear, and legitimated violence.

The Gospel is a highly subversive document. It painstakingly illustrates how the systems of both church and state (Caiaphas and Pilate) conspired to condemn Jesus. Throughout most of history, church and state have both sought plausible scapegoats to carry their own shame and guilt.

Jesus became the sinned-against one to reveal the hidden nature of scapegoating and so that we would see how wrong people in authority can be—even religious important people (see John 16:8-11 and Romans 8:3). The scapegoat mechanism largely operates in the unconscious; people do not know what they are doing. Scapegoaters do not know they are scapegoating, but they think they are doing a “holy duty for God” (John 16:2). You see why inner work, shadow work, and honest self-knowledge are all essential to any healthy religion.

In worshiping Jesus as the scapegoat, Christians should have learned to stop scapegoating. We too could be utterly wrong about choosing victims, just as high priest and king, Jerusalem and Rome—the highest levels of authority—were utterly wrong about Jesus. Power itself is not a good guide, yet for many, if not most people, authority soothes their anxiety and relieves their own responsibility to form a mature conscience.

Millions of soldiers have given their only lives by believing the lies of Genghis Khan, Napoleon, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Hitler, to name a few. The vast majority of violence in history has been sacralized violence. Members of ISIS probably believe they are doing God’s will. The Ku Klux Klan uses the cross as their symbol!

With God on our side, our violence becomes necessary and even “redemptive violence.” But there is no such thing as redemptive violence. Violence doesn’t save; it only destroys in both short and long term. Jesus replaced the myth of redemptive violence with the truth of redemptive suffering. He showed us on the cross how to hold the pain and let it transform us, rather than pass it on to the others around us.

Great stuff.

There's also a lot in his most recent book, The Tears of Things.

 

[lawtig02]

Thanks for this. I've got two thoughts, neither of which is particularly insightful. First, this talk of scapegoating obviously makes me think of Rene Girard, and so it's interesting to see these ideas takes a leftward, let us say, religious turn. For another such turn, I went to my bookshelves to find Arnold Eisen's Taking Hold of Torah, which makes the argument that ritual in Levitucus was emulative: it gives practitioners leave to participate in a world of art, a world where things can be made right; when the ritual ends, though, we're back in the real world, but with the example of the ritual to help us act right.

That being said, we should note that Rohr and Eisen are likely operating with different definitions of sin. Christianity often pushes for moral notions of right and wrong, good and evil. But Jewish concepts of sin rarely hit those rarefied registers and, for that reason, the scapegoat could never be such a dire matter. Sin is to merely "fall short"--we all fuck up. In the systems of sacrifice, sin is pollution; it is disorder in the orderly world that God has created. We accumulate such sin through actions that are not immoral at all--evacuating our bowels, ejaculating, menstruating. As luck would have it, animal blood is, in the words of Jacob Milgrom, a ritual detergent for sin.

Second, the idea of redemptive suffering puts me in the mind of James Baldwin's short story "Sonny's Blues." Baldwin was a child preacher and, in that story, he argues that art is taking the suffering that life affords us and making it more like us.

Thanks. That's all extremely interesting. Agree about Girard. Rohr makes clear in many of his books that Girard is among his primary influences.

Also agree about that extremely important difference between Judaism and Christianity. I find sometimes that American Jewish communities incorporate a lot of "Christian" influences, and Judaism in Israel has become so intertwined with nationalism, but the Jewish communities that remain in Central and Eastern Europe are about as spiritually pure as anything I've seen anywhere else.

Finally, I've read a lot of Baldwin but not that. Thanks for the recommendation. Adding to my Labor Day weekend itinerary!

 

[breepf]

The Gospel is a highly subversive document. It painstakingly illustrates how the systems of both church and state (Caiaphas and Pilate) conspired to condemn Jesus. Throughout most of history, church and state have both sought plausible scapegoats to carry their own shame and guilt.

I do not agree on this point or, perhaps put another way, I do not agree that the gospels are above their own form of scapegoating. After all, the gospels are already working out why non-Christian Jews (a combination of terms that makes perfect sense in the first century) are a problem.

 

[lawtig02]

I do not agree on this point or, perhaps put another way, I do not agree that the gospels are above their own form of scapegoating. After all, the gospels are already working out why non-Christian Jews (a combination of terms that makes perfect sense in the first century) are a problem.

To the extent you're confronting the "Jews Killed Jesus" theme, I agree. But Rohr would as well.

 

[lawtig02]

Great stuff.

There's also a lot in his most recent book, The Tears of Things.

I somehow missed that. Will add to my reading list. Thanks.

 

[breepf]

Thanks. That's all extremely interesting. Agree about Girard. Rohr makes clear in many of his books that Girard is among his primary influences.

Also agree about that extremely important difference between Judaism and Christianity. I find sometimes that American Jewish communities incorporate a lot of "Christian" influences, and Judaism in Israel has become so intertwined with nationalism, but the Jewish communities that remain in Central and Eastern Europe are about as spiritually pure as anything I've seen anywhere else.

Finally, I've read a lot of Baldwin but not that. Thanks for the recommendation. Adding to my Labor Day weekend itinerary!

I can't speak with as much experience on Orthodox or Conservative Jewish communities. But, yes, the 19th c. Reform movement did broadly "protestantize" Judaism to create a three-pronged "faith": land, people, book. That being said, most Reform Judaism synagogues would more closely resemble those disappeared liberal mainline churches of yesteryear. The basic thrust is postmillenial: how do we repair the world?

 

[breepf]

To the extent you're confronting the "Jews Killed Jesus" theme, I agree. But Rohr would as well.

Yes, Jews killed Jesus and, more subtly, the various moves in various gospels to suggest that God had already turned his back on the obstinate Jews. In short, the gospels scapegoat to the extent that they are theodicies and, as such, the task is to explain why the promised new creation has yet to happen.

 

[theel4life]

I’m a Christian and believe that God sent His son Jesus Christ to pay the ultimate price for my sins. I’d consider myself to be a person of faith but not of religiosity. I have very little time for religiosity, as a matter of fact, because I think that religiosity is little more than a bludgeon. I try to live my faith by being kind, generous, servile, loving, and accepting of all other people with whom I interact daily. Obviously, I fall far, far, far too short of that each and every single day (especially on this board!) but it’s my guiding principle and one toward which I’d like to continually strive.

I spend very, very little time in church. I grew up in a Southern Baptist Church and grew to hate it- the constant judgment, the constant hellfire and brimstone, the constant hatred toward “the others.” As I’ve gotten older, I’ve had very little interest in sitting in a pew on Sunday beside people who will profess to love God, love Christ, and love people- but who will then Monday through Saturday with their lives and act in ways that are the complete opposite.

Getting a little bit older and now having moved back home to North Carolina, I would like to change my church-going habits, especially as we now have two little boys (ages 3 and 3 months) whom I’d like to have the opportunity to grow up in a community of people who strive toward the above faith and guiding principles I mentioned. We live relatively close to my in-laws and I have always enjoyed going to their United Methodist Church when we would visit, which I find to be very progressive in its views, teachings, and interpretation of the Bible.

My view of “heaven” and “hell” is that the way that it has been traditionally taught and understood by so many different Christian denominations, is not accurate. I believe that it has been used as a carrot and a stick- much more often as a stick- as a means of controlling the masses. I don’t believe that we have to wait to die to go to heaven- I believe that heaven can be right here and right now here on this earth, and in fact I believe that Jesus commands us to make heaven right here on earth through our treatment of other people. I also don’t believe that “hell” is the like a fire and brimstone and eternal damnation and torment as was taught in my southern Baptist upbringing. I believe that hell is permanent separation from God and from His love and from His kingdom.

Personally, I do not believe one can be a Christian and also mistreat the immigrant, or the LGBTQ person, or the sick, or the homeless, etc. That’s primarily why I left the Republican Party- because fundamentally I believe that the way that the Republican Party treats each of the above is wholly disqualifying.

Beautifully said and my thoughts exactly. I refuse to go to church and surround myself with hate filled, judgmental hypocrites. I will not do it. Do they never just stop and think for one second if Jesus would approve of the way they act towards others?

 

[lawtig02]

I can't speak with as much experience on Orthodox or Conservative Jewish communities. But, yes, the 19th c. Reform movement did broadly "protestantize" Judaism to create a three-pronged "faith": land, people, book. That being said, most Reform Judaism synagogues would more closely resemble those disappeared liberal mainline churches of yesteryear. The basic thrust is postmillenial: how do we repair the world?

Can I just say, I'm really glad to have conversations like this on this board. I tend to avoid religion threads, but it's so nice, in this insane world with masked soldiers invading our streets to perpetrate the violence they're supposed to prevent, to have these good discussions about what Jesus (or, if you will, first century Judaism) has to say about the patterns that have played out hundreds of times over the last 2,000 years, and that are amplified to a terrifying level now.