Thoughts on Atonement
My friend at http://jridenour.wordpress.com has been blogging about atonement recently. The conversation has reminded me of my recent visit to the 'Dominus Flevit' church on the Mt. of Olives overlooking the city of Jerusalem. Dominus Flevit, in Latin, means 'Cry of the Lord.
"When He (Jesus) approached Jerusalem, he saw the city and wept over it, saying, 'If you had known in this day, even you, the things which make for peace! But now they have been hidden from your eyes. For the days will com upon you when your enemies will throw up a barricade against you, and surround you and hem you in on every side, and they will level you to the ground and your children within you, and they will not leave in you one stone upon another, because you did not recognize the time of your visitation.'" (Luke 19:41-44 NASB)
The picture above is a view looking towards the Old City of Jerusalem through the 'stained glass' window of the church. It's a beautiful window except there's no stained glass. That's because the designer of the church (Antonio Barluzzi) wanted the 'art' of the stained glass to be the city of Jerusalem itself. Luke 19 tells the story of Jesus walking from Bethany to Jerusalem (he would have walked over the Mt. of Olives down into the Kidron Valley and into the city from the East) and upon seeing the city broke down in tears. Maybe it was because of the beauty of the 2nd Temple (now the location of the Dome of the Rock, the golden-topped building you see in the above image)? Maybe he wept for Jerusalem because he knew she would be destroyed and because his people would be scattered through the nations because they did not 'heed' the coming of the son of Man? Maybe both?
Barluzzi designed the cross in the stain glass window to point to another church inside the Old City. At the tip of the cross there are two domes, these are the domes of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, originally built by decree of Emperor Constantine in the 4th century.
So what does the church of Jesus weeping have to do with the church where we remember his death? Was the death of Jesus the result of his own people 'not recognizing the time of their visitation?' (Some texts render the words: the coming of the Son of Man, or opportunity for salvation.) There's a million-dollar-word if I've ever seen one.
Salvation. Does Jesus' death have anything to do with salvation? Seems like this question would be a no-brainer to any student of religious studies, or really anyone who's ever gone through a semi-substantial catechumen or confirmation in the Church.
But maybe this is precisely the problem. It turns out there are many different ways to understand 'atonement.' (Atonement being the theological word for why we have salvation.) Jeremy gives a nice history lesson on the various themes atonement has taken on throughout church history, but his most recent comments on J. Denny Weaver's book 'The Nonviolent Atonement' have intrigued me. Jeremy points out the flaw of many atonement theories in that they only focus on the death/resurrection of Jesus as providing the catalyst for reconciliation with our Creator. Theology has been duly focused on the bloodshed of Jesus on the cross for centuries (the words 'What can wash away my sin? Nothing but the blood of Jesus...' come to mind); has this focus been a misguided one? Is theology missing out on a complete facet of atonement by focusing solely on the cross?
With atonement's focus on a singular event in history (the death/resurrection, okay maybe two events) the church has relegated the moment of salvation to an abstract distant past moment that we are largely disconnected with. We are disconnected from these events which took place close to 2000 years ago in a far-away land called Israel. Chances are most of us associated images of the cross with either Mel Gibson's 'Passion of the Christ' or a random 300 year old painting by some Italian guy, or even (and to some more shocking) images of Abu Ghraib. The fact is that we speak so highly of this 'substantial' moment when in fact we are so utterly disconnected with its reality. What we are really connecting with is the euphoria we have associated with these mental images of the crucifix.
I understand the caution that many show when discussing the role of the cross in atonement and salvation. If the death/resurrection focus is detrimental then will we throw out their significance all together? If the cross is not needed then does such a denial compromise the 'faith' of the individual? I think these are appropriate questions and deserve equal attention along with the ones I've raised earlier. What does a cross oriented atonement theory give us? But simultaneously we must also ask ourselves what we lose when we focus on the cross? This I think is the true task of the theologian: what are we missing?
Continue following this conversation at http://jridenour.wordpress.com and here (http://weshargrove.com).
If you think Jesus came to die then the entire narrative in the Garden or on the cross become ridiculous. Some might say God forsook him because Jesus absorbed the sins of the world and God hates sin. Perhaps. Or maybe God forsook Jesus, and Jesus didn't know why. Hence he's actually pleading with God for an answer to which he never receives a reply. There are a couple of places in the Bible where it's blatantly obvious that Jesus wasn't omniscient (e.g. Jesus doesn't know why the end times are, Jesus wrongfully predicts that end of the world will come before this generation passes away). It's also obvious that the first church understood this or they wouldn't have included such obvious signs where Jesus admits not knowing things. So, I think we have to confront the reality that Jesus truly experienced God-forsakeness on the cross. That, his main message or proclaiming the coming Kingdom was not ultimately fulfilled on the cross, but his fidelity to the Kingdom was expressed.