Edgework

Pushing backward beyond the penal substitution atonement theory we reach back all the way to Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury (1033 – 1109). In 1098 he published his views on the atonement in Cur Deus Homo (Why Did God Become Human?) in which he proposed what became known as the satisfaction atonement theory. Anselm felt that the commonly accepted christus victor theory which had been around for a thousand years of Christian history no longer communicated the gospel clearly to his contemporaries. He also felt it granted too much power and authority to the Devil.

The satisfaction atonement theory can best be understood when seen in light of the historical context in which it emerged. The dominant social structure of the time was the feudal system; a carefully managed series of reciprocal obligations. Lords living in castles offered protection to villagers (vassals) and kept the community in order by maintaining justice and the rights of the people. In return, vassals honored their lords by paying homage in words, deeds and the payment of money or goods. On the religious scene, it was a time in which penance was practiced as a way of obtaining forgiveness for sins committed.

Although Anselm may not have been conscious of it, he framed his theological beliefs about atonement according to the worldview of his culture and contemporary church experience. So the hypotheses of the satisfaction atonement theory are quite predictable: God, the Lord, provided a perfectly balanced world for humans to inhabit. Yet, by disobeying God, humans offended his honor and sent the universe spinning out of kilter. In order to escape punishment in hell, humans must “satisfy” the debt due God’s offended honor which will allow God to restore order to the universe. However the problem is that an offense against an infinite God can never be paid by a finite person; it had to be paid by another infinite person – which would need to be God himself. That is why God sent the God-man, Jesus, to suffer and die in order to provide satisfaction to God and restore his honor, although Anselm insisted that the divine part of Jesus was spared the suffering. What makes this theory operative is that this “excess penance” is then transferred to all who believe this narrative and the need for punishment is eliminated. Fait accompli!

There are some positive things to be said about this theory. Anselm succeeded in explaining to his contemporaries what Jesus accomplished on the cross using images easily intelligible to them. Furthermore, his theory deals with sin in an objective way and on a cosmic level by offering a psychologically plausible way of confronting the problem; it appeals to common human perceptions of right and wrong, guilt and innocence, and punishment and pardon. And, unlike in the penal substitutionary theory, Anselm does not present a wrathful God intent on punishing sin, but focuses on Christ willingly satisfying or paying the debt we owe.

But there are some significant weaknesses in the satisfaction atonement theory as well. One of the most significant is that it forms the basis for the penal substitutionary theory that emerged in later centuries. While it can be argued that Anselm’s theory portrays God in a more positive light, it was not a big step to move from the Lord whose honor was offended to a stern Judge intent on punishing sin. But there are other problems with the satisfaction atonement theory itself:

1. It makes God subservient to an order in the universe that requires him to demand satisfaction, and that in a violent manner.
2. Virtually all of Anselm’s images are drawn from his environment and little attempt is made to synchronize them with biblical language. Two texts frequently used to defend this theory are Romans 3:21-26 and Hebrews 9: 7-12. However, close scrutiny of these texts reveals that the focus is on the process of cleansing or purification of sin; there is not even a hint of satisfaction rhetoric present.
3. It presents a non-biblical quid pro quo dynamic; we did something bad to God, so now God must make us suffer in return. This concept is antithetical to Jesus’ teachings about how forgiveness works. Once a debt is paid and the books are balanced, what is there to forgive?
4. By focusing so intently on dealing with the debt of sin, there is little emphasis given to the impact of a restored relationship and what impact that will have on relationships with others.
5. For Anselm, redemption is all about gaining freedom from indebtedness, whereas the biblical concept of redemption is about gaining freedom from slavery to sin; once freed from sin we become servants of God.
6. It makes God complicit with evil. According to this view God needed the violent death of an innocent man, so he ordained it and saw it through. However in the process he uses evil men with their evil devices. Does that mean that Christ’s followers can also participate in evil if we hope to bring some good out of it in the end?
7. As in the penal model, this theory alienates the persons of the Trinity from one another, this time in the process of restoring honor. This is an illogical notion of a kingdom divided against itself?
8. By insisting that on the cross it was only the human Jesus who suffered, Anselm places Jesus’ divinity in a protective bubble and so does violence to the whole concept of the incarnation.
9. By rooting his understandings in feudalism, the penance system and Greek philosophy, Anselm reinforces the notion of an angry, demanding God.
10. This theory privileges the concept of retributive justice over restorative justice.

More than a millennium after Jesus death, Anselm’s satisfaction atonement theory opened the door to a second millennium dominated by thoughts of divine punishment for human sin as the only way to avoid eternal damnation in hell. So our search for more satisfactory atonement rhetoric continues.