I've just this morning finished reading Options on Atonement in Christian Thought by Stephen Finlan. Finlan offers a fairly sweeping overview of many options, so for the sake of brevity I will touch on only a handful of considerations that I find both helpful and difficult.
Finlan discusses "Paul's Cultic Metaphors," in a way that proffers a primer on Pauline atonement thought and helpful cogitations for seeing how Paul relates atonement metaphors to one another. Actually Finlan's discussion of Paul's "Conflation of Metaphors," is the section I found most helpful. He insists that if we shift our focus to individual metaphors in Paul's thought, "we will miss the importance of his constant conflating (mixing) of metaphors, which implies the blending of their underlying logic" (Options 25). If one chooses to focus justification, redemption, propitiation, scapegoating, reconciliation, or adoption then one easily misses the meta-argument Paul is making. On the other hand, it is also possible to overlook the individual meaning of each metaphor assuming all the terms to have the same meaning. I would argue that this is unfortunately what Christians do most often when terms such as redemption and adoption are not conflated, but assumed to be identical.
That said, Paul does conflate metaphors and even can conflate three in once sentence: "For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and to deal with sin, he condemned sin in the flesh" (Romans 8:3 NRSV). Here Paul joins the sacrificial ("to deal with sin" in the NRSV, or "as an offering for sin" in the NASB), judicial ("he condemend sin"), and scapegoat ("in the flesh"). Finlan notes that, "The specific focus on 'the flesh' at the beginning and end of the verse suggests a scapegoat image, as does the idea of one creature taking something on for the whole community" (Options 25). The question then remains as to why Paul combine the metaphors in the way he does. Finlan wants to insist that, "the bottom line for Paul is not metaphoric consistency but saving outcome. He uses any metaphor that will communicate that, through Christ, we are rescued, reprieved, redeemed" (Options 26).
This parsing of conflated metaphors can be done poorly as is seen in the case of penal substitutionary atonement. Paul, usually seen by its proponents as the source of penal substitution, does clearly discuss penalty and substitution, but the initial meaning of the metaphors must be understood first before they can be commingled. As Finlan helpfully notes, "In the judicial metaphor a penalty is avoided; salvation is pictured as an acquittal in the divine court. The element of substitution largely emerges from the redemption metaphor, which is substitutionary in a monetary, not penal sense" (Options 27). Skipping over definitional considerations can create incredibly confounded theological understandings. For instance, if I assume justification (judicial) and redemption (monetary) to have the same meaning I could logically picture God as being the divine judge who accepts bribes. Even by human standards that would make the Divine all-compassionate, all-merciful, all-perfect, and all-corrupt. In this day and age where power goes to the highest bidder this is clearly a troubling image.
Finlan would insist that those who derived penal substitution from Paul, "lost sight of Paul's essential idea that God was not reconciled--was not persuaded or manipulated--but was the reconciling the world to himself (2 Cor 5:19)" (Options 33). I would like to link this idea (God as the reconciler not the reconciled) to Finlan's later assertion that "None of This Was in Jesus" (Options 35). Consider the Parable of the Prodigal and His Brother (Luke 15:11-32), for instance. Both brothers need reconciliation with the father, but the father does all the reconciliation. There is no notion that penance or sacrifice is needed. In fact, there is no mention of such reconciliation even being burdensome to the father, but rather is cause for great celebration!
Finlan goes on to handle many different options in atonement theology which categorizes as defenses and critiques of atonement. The range from "Orthodox Defenses" (Schmiechen, Rahner, Balthasar, Wheeler, Gunton, and Moule) to "Postmodern Orthodox Views" (Boersma and Milbank), to critiques such as Girard and Nelson-Pallmeyer. Reading this range of considerations leads me to gravitate toward John Milbank (who, unfortunately, I am not going to be reading for this course) and, interestingly enough, Paul Fiddes.
Finlan reads Milbank's argument as insisting upon using incarnation as atonement not as primarily propositional assertions, but as "metaphors and narrative devices...meant to stimulate Christian ethics" (Options 90). Milbank sees atonement as forgiveness, having not only soteriology consequences, but also ecclesiological, "because the difficult process of forgiveness really does change those who participate in it" (Options 90). For Milbank, atonement conceived of as propositional truth, "simply does not work" (Options 91). One might think of Charles Taylor's adage, "The proof of a map is how well you can get around using it." This is not to say that the perceived misbehavior of the church has negated traditional atonement theology. Actually, Milbank argues, "that the whole concept of atonement can be reinterpreted in a fully orthodox way, without resort to literal-minded substitutionary ideas" (Options 92). This redefinition of atonement is ethic not in that it calls simply a unidirectional sacrifice of the believer in the name of principles, but rather, "to be ethical therefore is to believe in the Resurrection, and somehow to participate in it" (Options 94). Or as Jesus might put it, " For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life in order to take it up again" (John 10:17).
My interest in Paul Fiddes mostly lies in his concept of where God's wrath, "is not God's personal anger but is a law innate in life itself whereby sin always reaps negative consequence" (Options 101). This seems mostly like an intriguing thought exercise. However, I wonder if this concept might be brought into conversation with other interpretations. For instance, this is probably not too far from N.T. Wright's idea of God's wrath being equated military domination of Israel. We might be able to see both conceptions in the symbols of Daniel or Revelation wherein all earthly kingdoms who oppose God's peaceable kingdom will be defeated. Supposed sovereignty, on a national or individual level, apart from God's covenant will lead to decline and exile. There might be something there, or perhaps not.
No comments:
Post a Comment