Note: You can watch this teaching on CrossWalk’s YouTube channel.
Stories of unmerited grace are hidden in plain sight in the remembered history of Jesus. The seventh chapter of Luke’s Gospel features three stories of favor given by Jesus to unlikely candidates: a Roman officer, a widow who just lost her son to death, and an infamously immoral woman. Before the last story in this chapter there is an interesting scene where the imprisoned John the Baptist sends his disciples to ask Jesus if he is, indeed the anticipated Messiah or if they should be looking elsewhere. Jesus’ response was to report to John that, in short, grace was happening. While the story of the officer and the widow show us what happened in the moment, the final story is about what happened in response. A woman showed up unexpectedly to a dinner party at which she was uninvited hosted by a holier-than-thou Pharisee who became immediately unsettled at her presence. She made a spectacle of herself, pouring expensive perfume on Jesus’ head, and washing his feet with her tears and hair. Recognizing the indignant attitude of the Pharisee, Jesus turned it into a teaching moment about grace and gratitude. In short, the woman’s actions were a response to the love and grace she received from Jesus.
Grace given while Jesus was alive and well. Long before he died. Long before the cross and the forgiveness it represented. Long before the ransom was paid. Long before the substitutionary Lamb of God died for her sins. She was forgiven long before all of that, which, in and of itself, calls into question our thoughts about the when and how of grace.
The next five weeks are going to feature insights from Richard Rohr, one of many voices who are speaking from a fresh approach to Christianity that is scholarly, biblical, experiential, aware of history and our place in it. I have read many of his books and largely agree with him. He’s got something to say, and we have a lot to learn from him. So, get your nerd on and enjoy the videos, and please, please, please use the process questions below to help this stuff sink in.
Process Questions for Session 1: Atonement Theology*
Many participants like to come to the group conversation after considering individually some of the issues that will be raised. The following five reflective activities are intended to open your mind, memories and emotions regarding some aspects of this session’s topic.
1. Traditional atonement theology can be summed up by the roadside sign that announces “Jesus died for our sins.” This theology requires that there be a transaction—a deal—so that God can love what God created. God’s acceptance is purchased through the death of Jesus. Where have you encountered this theology? What place does it have in your belief system and in your faith community?
2. An alternative view of atonement (at-one-ment) tells us that God’s love has always come without conditions and still does. No deal is necessary. As you go through these days, engaged in the ordinary tasks of living, watch for signs of the overwhelming, unconditional love that God has for the creation, for you and for all that you choose to love.
3. Jesus models for us a life path that is all about letting go of illusion and pretense (the small false self ) and embracing the fullness of life—including death—in a way that the true self has space to emerge and to be known ever more fully. How is your “self ” doing as you follow this Christ path from the false to the true?
4. Quid Pro Quo names a way of dealing with things “tit for tat”—an eye for an eye. Retributive justice is like that, ensuring that the wrongdoer be adequately punished according to the laws of the state. Restorative justice, on the other hand, focuses on the just restoration of relationship in which the concerns of all those affected by the wrong done are addressed. Restorative justice makes space for the exercise of grace. Where have you seen grace being given space to make a difference recently?
Historical Background to Two Approaches to Atonement
Franciscans had an alternative understanding of the atonement from their inception 800 years ago. The Roman Church did not deem this heretical. In the broad-mindedness of the 13th Century, it was possible to have a minority position as well as a majority one without anyone being kicked out of the Church.
Mainline Protestantism by and large fully accepted the majority position on atonement. Because Franciscans were something of a sideshow within Catholicism, they were never as invested in it as most evangelical Christians are today.
1. Richard Rohr on the Majority Position on Atonement
Some insights that Richard offers in his introduction:
A. The mainline position on atonement that anyone in any denomination has probably been influenced by is summed up in the phrase you see on highway signs: “Jesus died for our sins.”
B. Traditional atonement theology claims that there needed to be a transaction for God to love what God created. God’s love had to be purchased in some way.
C. This theology is based on many quotes from the New Testament where this kind of language is being used: ransom, satisfaction, paying the price and died for us.
D. In the first 1,000 years of Christianity, the normal Christian consensus was that the debt was being paid to the devil.
E. It was Anselm of Canterbury (1033–1109) who, in his paper Cur Deus Homo (Why Did God Become Human), made a case for the debt being paid to God, not the devil.
F. Atonement made sense to Jewish people from their experience of Temple sacrifice, where there was some transaction necessary because the language and metaphors were already part of their tradition.
2. The Franciscan Minority Position on Atonement Theology
Having offered an introduction to traditional atonement theology, Richard then proceeds to offer a critique of it by presenting the Franciscan view of atonement beginning with a quote from Franciscan John Duns Scotus, one of the most important philosopher-theologians of the High Middle Ages:
Jesus did not come to change the mind of God about humanity,
but to change the mind of humanity about God.
Here are seven quotes from Richard’s presentation of the minority Franciscan position on atonement:
1. God organically loved what God created from the first moment of the Big Bang. There was an inherent love relationship between God and creation. God wanted to show God’s Self in material creation.
2. The Christ existed from all eternity. The Christ was the first idea in the mind of God.
3. Jesus is the image of the invisible God from all eternity. There is simply a union to be named: at-one-ment.
4. The first idea in the mind of God is to reveal who God is. Jesus is the revelation of God’s Plan A. Jesus is not a mop-up exercise after Adam and Eve ate that darn apple!
5. When we say in traditional atonement theology that there needs to be a transaction for God to love what God created, we create a barrier to mystical thinking and to the understanding of the unconditional love of God.
6. The traditional atonement theory doesn’t say much good about God. It suggests that God doesn’t have an inherent love for what God created; God is “pissed off,” so to speak.
7. No transaction was necessary. No blood sacrifice was necessary. No atonement is necessary. There is no bill to be paid.
Richard states:
When you make these challenges to traditional atonement theology people feel like you’re taking away their faith because many people have based their understanding of Jesus on this.
This may be true for you too. Perhaps this challenge to traditional atonement theology comes as a shock. It may take a while to fully absorb Richard’s challenge and to consider the implications for your own theology.
1. What impact does Richard’s critique of atonement theology have on you?
2. Now that we have these two conflicting approaches to atonement laid out so clearly, what do you affirm for yourself about these matters:
· God and creation
· Christ in creation
· Jesus as revelation
· the death of Jesus
· atonement vs. at-one-ment
3. Richard says:
When we say in atonement theology that there needs to be a transaction for God to love what God created, we create a barrier to mystical thinking and to the understanding of the unconditional love of God.
In other words, there can be no conditions on God’s love. That love existed from the beginning for all creation, and it is still here for you billions of years later. It did not need to be bought, and it will never need to be bought. What convinces you of the love of God, fully present with no conditions?
The Self-Emptying Way
Doug asks:
Jesus asks that the cup be passed and then goes on to say, “nevertheless, not my will but your will.” So he willingly dies. There is implicit in that a notion that, in some measure, God required of Jesus that he die. How does that fit in to plan A?
Richard responds:
I wouldn’t say that God required it. I would say that reality requires the letting go of what I call the “false self.” Reality requires the letting go of illusion and pretense. In my Christology I would say that Jesus died willingly, surrendering the Jesus “small self ” so the Christ “universal self ” could be born. In doing that he models for all of us the same path. I know this isn’t attractive to Western Christians, but death is part of the deal. That’s not a negative statement, a morbid, punishing or threatening statement. It’s just that animals know it, trees know it—the cycles of death and life. What we see in Jesus is a willing surrendering to that, an embracing of that.
Raymond adds:
Paul talks about Jesus emptying himself—in Greek, kenosis. The actual atonement that Jesus did was the emptying of himself to do what God wanted.
Richard responds:
You name it that way, and suddenly Buddhists take notice. We’re saying the same thing and, of course, if truth is one (as it has to be or it’s not truth), wouldn’t that make sense that the great religions are coming to very similar conclusions. So using that word “emptying” from Philippians is right on if we see it as an entire process of self-emptying instead of a dramatic three hours on the cross. For some Christian denominations the first 30 years of Jesus’ life mean nothing: his teaching can be ignored. It’s just those last three hours. I don’t mean to be disrespectful, but it amounts to “get that blood” instead of a whole life of self-emptying.
1. Richard encourages us to see this path that Jesus followed in letting go of the false self and giving birth to the true self (or universal self ) as something to be emulated. He acknowledges that this path isn’t attractive to Western Christians. What would it actually mean “to let go of the false self ” and to fully embrace the natural cycles of life and death?
2. What is it about this path that makes it unattractive to Western Christians?
3. If it’s attractive to you and is, perhaps, the way you live, what makes it so?
Shaped by Willfulness; Yearning for Willingness
Doug asks:
Isn’t it inevitable that experience is going to have to teach us that quid pro quo doesn’t work?
Richard responds:
We’ve been shaped much more by American culture. We like will-power religion: “I can do whatever I need to do.” The language of the scriptures and the mystics and saints is not the language of willfulness but willingness—the language of surrender. Jesus surrenders to his passion. He’s not steering the whole thing, he’s surrendering to what has to happen, what’s inevitable. That’s a very different language than “pulling up by my own bootstraps”! We are so formed by that notion that we pretend it’s the gospel. Christian preachers talk that way: “You can do it! You can do anything you want!”
In biblical theory that’s pure heresy, yet you can get away talking that way in a pulpit. Willfulness appeals to the egocentric, low level self. It looks like winners win. What the gospel is saying is losers win. We should all be happy about that because it includes all of us. That’s why I wrote the book Falling Upward. I wanted to show that you’ve got to go through that falling experience. Your initial self-created game for superiority has to disappoint you, has to fall apart on some level or you never get to the second half of life, which is the gospel possibility.
1. This is a huge condemnation by Richard of the meaning of religion within American culture. And it’s an alarming description of the consequence to individuals of that cultural reality. This conversation about surrender and falling into the second half of life has to be one of the hardest conversations for privileged North Americans! Listen with care. Speak with courage. How is this characterization of religion in America borne out in your experience and observation?
2. What has America lost as a result of the appropriation of religion that Richard is describing?
3. How has this tension between willfulness and willingness been lived out in your life? Where do you find yourself now?
A Deep Concern for the Generations to Come
Suzanne and Jennifer give voice to their passion for ensuring that these insights that come under the title alternative orthodoxy will be available to and desired by their children and grandchildren.
Suzanne puts it this way:
I hope that my son and his generation will not have to fight the fight that I’m fighting now. It took me a while to get to this because I was trying to remain loyal. Finally, through years of reading and being open to other ways of thinking, I realized this is no threat at all: I can hang on to these other things. I don’t want the next generation to have to undergo that. Maybe if we do our part in introducing this to them early on, telling them, “This is important, but so is this: God is a loving God!”
And Jennifer adds:
Something I’ve seen in working with adults in education are grandparents who see that their adult children aren’t baptizing the grandchildren, so the grandparents do it. And it’s not out of love, but out of fear, fear that if this child does not have water poured on its head and a ritualistic formula said exactly this way, then if the child dies he or she will go to hell. That to me says so much about what your image of God is. It’s so important to communicate to our children, to our grandchildren a different image of God than what I had. I had the cosmic attendance-taker keeping track of my sins and of my attendance at mass instead of a God who from the get-go planned to come and meet us where we are.
Richard responds briefly:
We’ve discovered—and I’m sure you as educators know this—it’s not what parents say, it’s what they’re excited about. If you talk about this in an excited way, it’s sold. It takes.
1. We are in a time in mainline Christianity when participation in the life of the congregation at all age levels, but especially at younger ages, is in dramatic decline. Many congregations have neither children nor younger adults participating in the life of their faith community, so this issue raised by Suzanne and Jennifer really matters. Theology matters. Why would people stick around to hear about a God who is keeping track of your sins and your attendance at church? Richard reminds us that genuine excitement about something that really matters makes a difference to those who are learning and seeking. What do you think about all this?
2. Is it too late for Christianity to recover from its history of bad theology?
3. What do you intend to do in terms of the spiritual and faith-formation of the generations to come, especially the ones in whose lives you have an influence?
* from Embracing an Alternative Orthodoxy: A 5-Session Study by Richard Rohr with Tim Scorer, Morehouse Education Resources, 2014