What is Catalyst?
Four issues of Catalyst are mailed each academic year to some 5,000 UM theological students in more than 100 seminaries in the U.S.A.

AFTE
Catalyst is a project of A Foundation for Theological Education (AFTE).

What is the John Wesley Fellowship Program?
Each year AFTE awards up to five John Wesley Fellowships to assist gifted United Methodists in their doctoral studies at the finest universities.

Back Issues
Several back issues of Catalyst are now available on-line.

Subscriptions
Subscription is free for UM seminarians, and is available to all others for $5 per year.

ATONEMENT THEOLOGY AND THE TASK OF DISCERNMENT

It has often been noted that the doctrines of christology and trinity received definitive treatment in the fourth and fifth centuries, but that the doctrine of the atonement has never been so prescribed. This historical remark is correct, yet the conclusion to be drawn is not that the Christian tradition gave no guidance in the doctrine, but rather that the central issues and affirmations were expressed in a wealth of language and images. The sheer diversity and complexity of atonement theories is daunting-the various accounts of the purpose, necessity, and means of reconciliation through the cross and resurrection of Jesus Christ seem not only disparate but sometimes contradictory. 

Atonement typologies have frequently been suggested as an effort to organize and systematize the sheer amount and diversity of theological approaches (see, e.g., P. Fiddes, Past Event and Present Salvation [John Knox, 1989]; C. Gunton , The Actuality of Atonement [Wm.B. Eerdmans, 1989]; J. McIntyre, The Shape of Soteriology [T. & T. Clark, 1992]). Typological approaches to atonement theology can sometimes be illuminating, but they tend to overly-systematize the field of atonement images and metaphors (see L. Van Dyk, The Desire of Divine Love [Peter Lang, 1995]). Might it be helpful, rather, to articulate guiding principles for constructive atonement theology? To identify the key principles of atonement theologies, the central theological concepts? This approach may better highlight the foundational issues of atonement theology and display both their weighty implications as well as their internal connections. 

The contemporary resistance to any proposal, however modest, for "guiding principles" or "rules" should not be underestimated. Yet, such guiding rules are not intended as a conceptual straightjacket but rather as a clarifying method of approaching daunting diversity and complexity in atonement theology. I have identified four guiding principles that arise from central beliefs about the nature of God and of human beings, and about the justice and love of God. 

The four guiding principles will be presented in terms of questions or issues: They are: (1) the question of the necessity of the atonement, (2) the question of the identity of the Savior, (3) the question of the motivation of the atonement, and (4) the question of the means of the atonement. 

It must quickly be noted that these four issues or questions do not comprise a complete set of relevant and crucial issues in atonement theology. For example, anthropological issues are not considered. Questions like, What is the human person's part in reconciliation? or, What is the community's task in reconciliation and how is it related to the work of Christ? are not considered in the set of principles above. Yet, the four suggested are an adequate tool for clarity and discernment in atonement theology. 

The wide variety of atonement accounts can be organized, not on the basis of a prevailing motif, but on their correspondence to these four questions. It quickly becomes clear that answers provided to these questions reveal the deepest differences among all atonement accounts. What follows is an explication of the three types of atonement accounts which result from the answers to the key questions. These are not based on any particular theologian or historical period or prominent metaphor or motif. They are more like the bare frame of a house than a complete, finished theory. 

Suffering Love Accounts
First, there are those atonement accounts that affirm the radical need for atonement due to the devastating effects of sin in the human heart, in human community, and in human institutions. With respect to the first question, then, atonement is necessary because humanity has suffered a fatal wound in the culpable perversity of sin. Sin has so incapacitated humanity as to require radical divine action. 

The second question, on the identity of the Savior, is answered by an affirmation of the necessity for a fully divine/fully human Jesus Christ. Only a full doctrine of incarnation can support a full doctrine of reconciliation. With respect to the third question, these sorts of atonement accounts affirm the love of God as the motivation for the atonement. It is the loving heart of the Father which yearns for lost humanity. God's love is the ground of atonement. 

With respect to the fourth question, concerning the means of atonement, these accounts assert that the suffering love of God is the effective means of both divine judgment and gracious divine mercy. Suffering love is the reconciliation between God and humanity, and, in some carefully stated way, the path of Christian discipleship. 

This first group includes all atonement accounts which, in one way or another, articulate the redemptive effect of the suffering love of God through Christ. This first group, thus, can be identified with the general term, the "suffering love" account. 

Suffering Wrath Accounts
The second group of atonement accounts answers the first key question in the same way. The necessity of the atonement arises from the sin of humanity and its entrapment in the consequences of sin. The second question, as well, is parallel to the first. The person Jesus Christ is Immanuel, God-with-us. It is with respect to the third and fourth key questions that this group stands in stark contrast. The motivation of the atonement is not primarily the love of God but the wrath of God. It is to deal with God's anger that Christ became incarnate, lived an obedient life, and died a cruel death. It is God's anger that is the root of atonement. The means of atonement, then, is the punishment that Christ took on in our place-the propitiation of God's wrath by substituted punishment. 

There are interesting and complex ways in which the first "frame" is similar to this second one. For example, both accounts can be characterized by some of the same terminology. Technical terms such as "representation," "substitution," "propitiation," and "expiation" characterize much of the literature of both accounts. Both can also use the language of love, judgment, suffering, and wrath. 

Such terminological similarities can cause exquisite confusions. Yet the key differences between the "suffering love" accounts and the "suffering wrath" accounts become clear-and crucially important-when they are considered in light of the answers to the four questions as articulated above. Then the fundamental theological differences-with all their practical implications-become more clear. 

The key difference can be stated another way. In the suffering love account, the suffering love of God is both the judgment and the mercy of God. There is a distinction, but no disjunction and certainly no antagonism between the judgment and mercy of God. Both are displayed in the suffering love of God. In the suffering wrath account, the wrath of God produces judgment and the love of God-won at the cost of Christ's substitutionary sacrifice-produces subsequent divine mercy. Here there is a disjunction, even an antagonism, between God's judgment and mercy. 

Renewed Human Community Accounts
The third group of atonement accounts answers the three questions in ways that sometimes overlap and sometimes refute the first and second groups. With respect to the first question, concerning the necessity of atonement, this group of atonement theories vigorously denies the necessity of atonement. There was no need for the passion and death of Jesus Christ. The cross is a crime, no more than that, and certainly no less. Thus, any concept of the necessity of the cross is seen as blasphemous, as scandal, as profoundly contrary to human dignity and responsibility. The farther the Christian traditions can get away from the obsession with the cross, the better. 

With respect to the second question, about the identity of the Savior, the answer again is radically different. Here is an account, with numerous variations, characterized by "low" christologies, sometimes even "minimalist" christologies. The litany is familiar: Jesus is simply a particularly enlightened human being, the bearer of God's love, the exemplar par excellence of a wide variety of human virtues, and the like. Sometimes these virtues seem to cancel each other out. Sometimes, Jesus is held up as the perfect example of self-sacrificing love, for example, while in other theories, this is explicitly refuted and he is held up as the exemplar of proper relationality-between men and women, body and soul, etc. (See the interesting critique of J.D. Roberts, an African-American theologian, by D. Williams, a womanist theologian, in Williams' Sisters in the Wilderness, 167-70.) 

With respect to the third question, about the motivation of the atonement, the answer bears some similarity to the first group. However, because of the radical rejection of the necessity of atonement and the reduced status of Jesus, the tone of this answer is quite different. God does not will the death of Christ. God is not motivated by anything with respect to Christ's sufferings and death. If there is any divine motivation, it has to do with the call of God to repudiate any such suffering, any such injustice, any such rampant scape-goating. Yes, the love of God is the ground and milieu of the life and ministry of Jesus. But the death of Jesus has no divine disposition as ground. 

Thus, with respect to the fourth question, on the means of atonement, the answer is solidly in the arena of human agency and activity. There is an explicit rejection of the passion and crucifixion of Christ as the primary locus of salvation. The cross is a monstrous crime with no redemptive value or effect whatsoever. The cross, and empty tomb as well, fade into the background as extraneous elements in Christian faith and the life of Jesus is underscored as the source of inspiration for new Christian community. The community engages in self-transformation in response to the call and lure of God. God's love calls forth from human persons the desire to form communities of support, love, and acceptance. Reconciliation does not occur on the basis of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It occurs on some other basis, such as following the example of Jesus' life and ministry or viewing Jesus as a prototype of a new humanity. 

Evaluation and Analysis
It must now be acknowledged that my commitment with respect to these matters lines up firmly with the suffering love accounts of the atonement, in all its historical variety. It is my observation that when atonement accounts avoid, reject, or mute the suffering love of God, the reverberations in Christian theology and the life and witness of the church are widespread. With respect to the other two accounts outlined, my view is that the renewed human community accounts fail on matters of profound importance to Christian faith and life and that the suffering wrath accounts often terrify and repel rather than proclaim good news. Even this negative critique, however, must not overlook the instructive features of these sorts of atonement accounts. 

The atonement "frames" as outlined above have several features that should be noted. First, a weakness of this proposed schema: It must be admitted that this method of organization, like typologies in general, does have the disadvantage of an overly simple and neat structure. Clarity comes at the expense of subtlety. For example, some of the genuinely important and interesting differences between, say, Athanasius, Anselm, Calvin, Barth, Balthasar, and Moltmann are muted. These diverse Christian writers all fit in the suffering love category. Even those last few words, "fit in the suffering love category," indicate the potential misuse of this organizational system. The purpose of this structure is not so much to fit atonement theories into categories, although that may be pedagogically appropriate, but to serve as a tool of discernment for the witness and service of the church. In short, the dangers of over-systemization cloud this system as well. 

Second, a strength: The structure outlined above has the advantage over a typology like that of P. Fiddes, G. Aulen, and others of an openness to a variety of metaphors or motifs. It does not lock on to one primary metaphor as its exemplar. For example, the category of suffering love accounts can employ the motifs of sacrifice, cleansing, ransoming, etc.-all classic images-as well as a more contemporary (although also biblical) motif of healing. The advantage is a certain hospitality to a variety of atonement motifs, depending on the worshipping community's context or pastoral needs. 

This advantage can be important in the contemporary atonement discussion. Many feminist theologians have raised objections to the heavily forensic, judicial character of atonement motifs in the tradition. These are judged to be hierarchical, punitive, and potentially oppressive. Although these sorts of arguments often rest on serious distortions of classic atonement motifs, the concern underlying them is important. Christian theological language must not hinder or obstruct a hearing of the gospel. There is room, on this scheme, for pastoral care for those people who cannot hear good news in forensic images but may well hear good news in other biblical images. 

My own view with regard to feminist critiques of atonement theology is that the abuse of Christian doctrines should not entail their demise. If atonement theology has been used to legitimate the abuse of women-and it has-that does not mean that atonement theology should be discarded. On the contrary! It should be reclaimed and restated to express the good news of God's love in Christ-to women. The Christian community must then resolve not to repeat egregious offenses to the Christian faith by construing central doctrines as harmful to people, or to some people. 

Third, this system, although flexible and hospitable, is clear and precise on important atonement affirmations. It identifies most important features of a Christian atonement theology and gives clear guidelines on how to recognize an inadequate account. If, for example, a particular atonement account says a great deal about the community of redeemed persons, living in relationships of shalom, and says nothing at all about God's gracious divine initiative and action, one can quickly spot the lacuna. Likewise, if a particular account says all these things about healthy community relationships, social justice, and ecological sensitivities, and also grounds these features of the Christian life in the love of God as seen in life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, then the overall balance and completeness of the account is evident. 

The Task of Discernment
My observation is that Christian pastors, laypersons, and seminary students get caught in circles of misunderstanding on atonement theology more than any other doctrine-with serious results for authentic gospel ministry. It is one thing, say, for a Christian minister to have a profound aversion to the filioque-so much so that she refuses to preach it. It is quite another for a Christian minister to have a profound aversion to the doctrine of the atonement. Yet this aversion is widespread in significant sectors of the church. As a result, the proclamation and witness of the church is threatened and its worship of God strikingly shallow, boring, and irrelevant. 

The atonement schema which I have proposed can be used as a means of discernment for the directing and guiding of Christian preaching on the cross of Christ. Let us suppose that a Christian pastor has been convinced that the suffering love account of the atonement, even as briefly explicated above, is the fullest and most adequate account of God's reconciliation of the world. Perhaps he has been convinced not only on the basis of the description, but also as a result of its comparison with the other two. Their inadequacies are highlighted in contrast to the suffering love account. The insights and strengths that the latter two accounts may exhibit are also noticed, but the first account is seen as most complete and comprehensive of biblical testimony.
Yet, let us also suppose that this Christian pastor always thought, indeed, may have been taught, that this suffering love account requires the use of penal substitutionary language. Because of this assumption, he has avoided sermons that explicitly address the meaning of the cross. He has avoided many passion hymns and liturgical resources that seemed to portray God as wrathful. With the atonement accounts as outlined above, perhaps this pastor can see the genuine options in the suffering love account, how the suffering love account and the suffering wrath account are in some ways similar and in some other, crucial ways dissimilar-and the critical difference this makes in his own sermon-writing and pastoral care. In this way, theology fulfills its true task as a tool for the life and witness of the church and as an aid for clear Christian discernment. 

By Leanne Van Dyk, Associate Professor of Reformed Theology, Western Theological Seminary, Holland, Michigan.