Edgework

12. Jesus Disarmed the Principalities and Powers: In the biblical narrative, atonement encompasses more than Jesus securing salvation for individual believers. While Jesus was in the process of doing so, he also “…disarmed the principalities and powers and made a public example of them, triumphing over them thereby” (Colossians 2:13-15). Much dialogue around the concept of atonement overlooks the fact that in his birth, life, teaching, death and resurrection Jesus was participating in spiritual warfare. Hendrick Berkoff, in Christ and the Powers, reminds us that the principalities and powers were created to hold us together and close to the heart of God. But in their fallen state they only perform half of their function, namely; holding society together but at the same time holding it away from the heart of God (30).

This topic deserves more attention than we can give it here, but at least it should alert us to the concept Paul develops on a number of occasions that in the Jesus event God’s purpose was “…to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ” (Ephesians 1:10). Any theory or doctrine of atonement that leaves out the cosmic dimensions of the salvific work of Christ will not do the subject justice. While it may be difficult for us to understand just how Jesus disarmed the principalities and powers that hold us away from God, we must find a way to include this dimension of the work of Christ in the atonement process.

13. Theology Must Balance Accommodation and Confrontation: In his landmark book, Pilgrimage in Mission, Donald Jacobs makes the case that while the gospel is one, how we speak about it in various settings will vary depending on the cultural context we are in. “New Testament theology is therefore concerned with Christ’s accommodating grace. All people are entitled to experience God’s redemption in their local idiom” (66). The Apostle Paul seemed to understand this because as he travelled and wrote extensively he used different metaphors or idioms to speak about the atoning work of Christ. And when we review church history we discover that in different places in different times different metaphors or idioms were employed to help people understand the work of Christ. And that is still happening today as we present the gospel in our various contemporary settings.

Jacobs, however, goes on to say, “…the theologies of accommodation are fraught with pitfalls, some of which we do well to recognize lest we find ourselves too much ‘of’ the world” (60). In other words, by speaking in the “language” of the people we are in danger affirming aspects of culture which are in fact contrary to the gospel. As we look at church history we can see this phenomenon at work in retrospect. Various forms of ideology, such as nationalism for example, ethnocentrism, status quo stagnation, ethical relativism, tribalism, legalism and syncretism have sometimes continued to be affirmed in people groups who have heard the gospel in metaphors that make sense to them. In other words, not enough care has been taken to show that the gospel also confronts elements of any given culture besides affirming some things within it such as the idioms it uses.

So when we evaluate the pros and cons of various atonement theories that have been advanced throughout church history, we must always ask whether a proper balance between accommodation and confrontation has been maintained. The same must be said for any specific theory we are advancing in modern times, although it is always easier to see the pitfalls in retrospect. In any case, any theory of atonement that ends up affirming elements of culture that are contrary to the gospel must be suspect.

14. A Theory is a Theory: One of the reasons theologians put forth theories about any subject such as atonement is that they know they cannot prove the point of view with a hundred percent certainty. One of the troubling factors we have already mentioned is that all theories of atonement that have been advance thus far in our faith journey as a church cannot accommodate all the biblical references to the work of Christ. The “leftover” texts leave a hint of uncertainty stamped on any given theory. Not only that. Any theory always gives rise to honest and thoughtful questions. “Really,” some people say, “if that is the case does this mean…”? For example, “If God cannot forgive sins unless that sin has been punished, does that mean that God must submit to some universal philosophical principle which is of a higher order than his own will?”

In the scientific community, a proposed theory is an invitation to further testing, reflection and possible new discoveries. And so in theology; when a theory is proposed it invites further reflection and testing. That requires a certain degree of humility. A major problem occurs when a theory is postulated as the absolute, unvarnished truth to be understood as such for all time and in all places. As we will see in our continuing dialogue, some contemporary theologians have begun to shy away from advancing specific theories of atonement, choosing instead to simply remain with the story as it comes down to us. Is it possible that the whole project of proposing theories may in itself be a flawed way of doing theology. At least that question gives us something to think about as we proceed.

15. Jesus Was a Dual Representative: Although this point might seem obvious, it bears emphasizing that in the process of atonement Jesus was both a representative of God and humankind. In Romans 13:3 Paul states that the insults that were directed at God fell on Jesus, his representative. And in I Timothy 2:5 he states that “…there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” This dual representation should feature somewhere in any construct that attempts to understand the biblical teaching of atonement.