I'm leading a group to read through Mere Christianity, and one issue we had to stop and talk about was Lewis' very non-Evangelical take on the atonement. In the chapter "The Perfect Penitent" (book 2, chapter 4), he begins with a mischaracterization of the atonement that is common among non-Christians:
Now before I became a Christian I was under the impression that the first thing Christians had to believe was one particular theory as to what the point of this dying was. According to that theory God wanted to punish men for having deserted and joined the Great Rebel, but Christ volunteered to be punished instead, and so God let us off. Now I admit that even this theory does not seem to me quite so immoral and so silly as it used to....
As a believer, it's doesn't seem as "silly as it used to", but he returns to the notion later in the chapter, referring to the theory of
... our being let off because Christ has volunteered to bear a punishment instead of us. Now on the face of it that is a very silly theory. If God was prepared to let us off, why on earth did He not do so? And what possible point could there be in punishing an innocent person instead? None at all that I can see....
He goes on to give a different, "more acceptable" take on substitutionary atonement, but we have to accept that what he rejects here is the pretty standard Evangelical, even Protestant, view. Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA) is very much the idea that Christ took the punishment for our sin.
"If God was prepared to let us off, why on earth did He not do so?" Protestants can answer that question. PSA is only "very silly" if you phrase it in a silly way. But here we are. How do I respond to Lewis' disdain for what I see as clear biblical truth?
I let Lewis be Lewis. He was not an Evangelical. In some places, he barely seems Protestant. If he doesn't subscribe to Penal Substitutionary Atonement, that's not the end of the world. We can disagree about that and still be "friends".
I am firmly convinced PSA is biblical, but it is not the gospel. Lewis explains this well:
The central Christian belief is that Christ’s death has somehow put us right with God and given us a fresh start. Theories as to how it did this are another matter. A good many different theories have been held as to how it works; what all Christians are agreed on is that it does work.
On that point, he's absolutely right. Christ "was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification" (Rom 4:25). Trusting in that is necessary for salvation; understanding exactly how that works is not.
As Lewis says, many different theories have been offered. And they all have something valid to teach us. Among them:
In The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe, Lewis seems to use the "ransom theory" to explain Aslan's death, the notion that Christ died to buy us back from Satan. That seems like the "very silly" theory to me. Except Christ himself said he came to "give his life as a ransom for many" (Mark 10:45). So maybe there's something we can learn from that view.
The "moral-example theory" is the foundation of Pelagius' heretical views about people being able to earn their salvation. Yet it points us to some real biblical truths: “To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps” (1Pet 2:21).
Abelard's "moral-influence theory" says Christ's death was a demonstration of God's great love for us. Well it was: “God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Rom 5:8). The cross shows us just how far God’s love for us goes. Once we understand the depths of our sin, the love shown at the cross should leave us speechless.
The view called "Christus Victor" emphasizes Jesus' victory over the powers of evil saying when Man sinned they gained a foothold on the earth and authority over humanity. At the cross, Christ took all of that back. “And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross” (Col 2:15). Though for now sin and death and the dark powers that are loose in the world can still harm us in their death throes, the war is over, and we have victory in Christ Jesus.
Norman Geisler, in his Systematic Theology, discusses several more options and shows how even the most liberal theories of the atonement have something to offer us. When we don't insist on one theory to the exclusion of all others, we can have a deeper understanding of and appreciation for the work of Christ on the cross.
It's important for us to emphasize this to others. A number of deconstruction stories have involved someone who is uncomfortable with PSA, which is often taught as the only view, grabbing onto another theory and saying, "Ah ha! Everything I've been taught about the cross is wrong, so I'll follow this path now." If we're not so doctrinaire, that rug can't be pulled out from under doubters. If we talk about other views, they won't seem novel when they hear them from a progressive pastor.
In similar fashion, we don't need to be so rigid about our reading. Some only read authors they agree with 100%. How boring! When we read outside our theological tribe, we broaden our horizons. And the exercise of saying, "Yes, but ..." strengthens our minds and convictions.
Image via Unsplash
No comments:
Post a Comment