We’re going to dive into some other atonement theories, including womanist views? Is that the same thing as feminist? Check out our conversation…
Don’t miss our other conversations about atonement: https://gospeltangents.com/lds_theology/atonement/
Copyright © 2024
Gospel Tangents
All Rights Reserved
Except for book reviews, no content may be reproduced without written permission
Objective vs Subjective Atonement
GT 00:41 But I do like some of the other models. And I like–because I know, in fact, I just pulled up the Wikipedia article, because I was looking at it. It’s really different than the one I remember from 10 years ago when I saw it. But I would like to hit some of the main ones. Could you describe for an audience who may not be familiar with other models? I want to get away from penal substitution, personally. I want to talk about the others, because I think people don’t know what they are. So, Eric, you mentioned moral influence. I remember in your chapter, you talked about nonviolent and womanist. And I think Deidre, you’re kind of the–you’re the womanist [expert.] And is that just another word for feminism, that’s not supposed to be as…
Eric 01:28 Deidre, why don’t we do this, because you’re more of a theologian? Why don’t I do the three classic approaches, and then we’ll let Deidre do the more theological expansions. And for your listeners who haven’t seen the book yet, we divide the book into two sections. The first is called Scriptural Historical Foundations and the second section is called Theological Exploration. So let me do the foundation part and then Deidre can do the expansion.
Eric 01:52 Not everyone agrees with this, and the person who immediately followed me, Ariel Bybee Laughton, pointed out that this is an outdated rubric. But there was a Swedish scholar, Gustaf Alin, who came up with three major theories. And the one was objective, and then one was subjective, and one was what he called Christus Victor. And the objective is an umbrella for atonement models that are trying to change someone else besides ourselves. So, it’s either for those who use the term propitiate, propitiate an angry God, or to ransom us from the devil, or somehow change something else. I mean, J.B. would, even, I think, subscribe to this: change nature and natural law that are demanding a consequence.
Eric 02:40 Subjective models are that the atonement is changing us. And just fast forward to the Givens, healing would be a subjective model, the Atonement is changing us. What Gustav Alin pointed out with Christus Victor, and he had some good New Testament models for this, is that Christ was victorious over something like sin or a death. So, those were the three big rubrics. And we had people in the Middle Ages–Abelard was for–which one was that? He was objective, right? And then Anselm was subjective. This is outside of my ken here. But then we get into many other models. And so Ariel set the stage for that. And then someone like Deidre, who does so much with contemporary theology, was able to bring in these non-violent models. And yes, she’ll tell you womanist is very much different from feminist. Go ahead, Deidre.
Womanist Atonement
Deidre 03:38 So, I work primarily as a feminist theologian. So the term womanist refers to women of color, specifically and largely black women. There are lots of different subsets, different names that people will use to specify women of different ethnic and racial backgrounds, with the recognition that feminism isn’t a monolith. There’s intersectionality, that issues like race, class, different social locations affect women differently. And so, Delores Williams, who I mentioned earlier, was one of these pioneers of womanist theology. She also made an incredibly difficult case against traditional atonement theories, specifically as a black woman, and talked about how this idea of what she called surrogate suffering, where Christ takes on the suffering of other people in some redemptive way, is extremely problematic for women, given the history of slavery. It really fits a sort of model of what women under slavery were asked to do. And so, a lot of my work, starting with my dissertation and going on to the present, is thinking about how our models of atonement are deeply problematic in terms of valorizing violence, or valorizing excessive self-sacrifice or giving us a sense that all suffering is inherently redemptive and good. This makes women vulnerable to abuse and exploitation. It makes them vulnerable to under development, a sense that, almost, they’re more righteous if they don’t develop themselves as individuals. All of this really grows out of different theories and models of atonement and the way that atonement is talked about. So, I am really concerned, as a scholar, in terms of thinking about what’s really efficacious and helpful in the ways we think about atonement.
Deidre 05:59 So just as Eric and I are defending that, all of these different models have some kernel of truth. I also want to recognize that some are more helpful for us to think about. So, coming back to this issue of penal substitution, one thing that I want to name that is really advantageous about a model like that, is that it gives us a sense that the Atonement is absolutely necessary. Now, is it a completely satisfactory explanation about why it’s necessary? Maybe not. There are maybe some issues there that are problematic that we want to play with. But it helps us understand that when Christ is suffering so ultimately, that there’s an actual reason that that happens, that there was no other way. Something like moral influence theory, which Gene England, as Eric was saying, made popular within Mormonism over a period of time, maybe not immediately. But my sense is that both within Mormonism and beyond it, there is just intuitively, a greater level of comfort with something like a moral influence theory. But when you really think about it, if we’re concerned about the issue of violence, if we’re concerned about valorizing suffering in a way that becomes really dangerous and problematic for people, particularly people of marginalized identities, then moral influence theory is actually a bigger problem than penal substitution. I’m going to say this as raw, as I say things as a feminist theologian. If Christ is suffering, so ultimately, just for fun, if this is something that divine beings do for fun, rather than because it’s absolutely necessary, that is actually a much deeper ethical problem for us to grapple with. And so, I just really want to name that. I think people are too quick to dismiss penal substitution and too quick to latch on to something like moral influence. There are problems all the way around. And there are really helpful kernels of truth all the way around. And so we really need to be careful in thinking about this.
Deidre 08:14 And so you’ll see that in the second section of the book, as Eric was talking about the division, you’ll see a lot of contemporary theological approaches to thinking about atonement within the Latter-day Saint canon, within our theology, that move away from a lot of violence and move away from penal substitution. I think that that’s the right thing to do. Because I think, as I was saying before, there are lots of ways that we go wrong in our thinking, when we are too fixated on suffering and violence, just as a practical matter. But we also want to have a sense that if this is what Jesus did, if he did suffer in this excruciating way, which I believe he did, we also want an explanation that’s better than he just chose to. That actually is deeply problematic, to my mind. I think, actually, we have a more humane view of God, we have a more humane view of atonement, if there is some reason that Christ had to do that. Within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, within our canon, especially given the Doctrine and Covenants, we have a way to do that. We have we have a concept of eternal law, that there are ways that we just have to do things and even God is subject to those laws. So, we have a way to hold on to this idea of necessity, that Jesus suffered this much because there was no other way, but that it’s not some cruel, angry god that’s imposing this rule like we get in classical Christianity, that God isn’t just having to be placated. But there’s something about the nature of the universe, there’s something about the nature of existence, that requires this. And so, I just think it’s really important that we think really carefully about all these issues and not be too quick to dismiss one view or another.
Eric 10:18 Back to that brief foray I had into expiation versus propitiation. Propitiation became unpopular with more contemporary translators, because propitiation made God angry. But expiation would be in harmony with what Deidre was saying, in terms of Doctrine and Covenants and law. These are just things that happen. In terms of the feminists and particularly the womanist objection to violent atonement models, I think there actually is an application that, Rick, even straight white males can associate with, which is, the problem is when we feel like we have to suffer. Christ suffered, so we have to suffer, right? I mean, this is why the womanist critics were concerned about this. Are we going to valorize all of this stuff that we’ve had to go through? I can’t tell you how many times I, myself, or in the few times I’ve served in church leadership, I’ve dealt with people in the repentance process, as we used to call it. “I haven’t suffered enough.” When the Scriptures say broken heart and contrite spirit, it doesn’t mean that we’re suffering for our sins. It means our hearts are broken, that we would disappoint God or we’ve let ourselves down, or we to have contrite spirits, to be humble, to receive the effects of the atonement. We need to come unto Christ. But the reality is, Christ did the suffering. And, yet, sometimes, I think, a simplistic understanding of penal substitution. “Well, Christ had to suffer for those sins. So, I have to suffer this much to receive the grace.” Does that make any sense? I mean, I think that’s a false assumption we’ve often had. Because you need to bring fruits meet for repentance, which is the scriptural expression, we feel like we need to suffer X amount before we’re forgiven. When really, the broken heart means that I recognize I’ve done something wrong. I’m sorry, Lord, but I have faith in Jesus, I’m going to come to him, He did the suffering. And see this is why we can’t dismiss penal substitution, or in J.B.’s, consequential substitution. There is suffering. But the miracle of the Atonement of Jesus Christ is that we don’t need to suffer. And even though we may not understand why there needs to be “suffering,” our finite minds don’t grasp that, that’s the nature of eternal law. And Christ does that for us. That’s why we can’t let go of substitutionary theories. Let’s not just privilege penal substitution. We can’t just give up the idea of vicarious substitution.
Christus Victor
GT 12:52 Very good. You know, I talked to Chris Thomas. He’s a Pentecostal theologian in Cleveland, Tennessee. And I asked him a little bit about his view of atonement. And it sounds to me, and, hopefully, Chris, I’m not getting this wrong, but you can correct me if I am. It sounded to me like he was much more open to a Christus Victor, where Christ triumphed over death and sin. And I guess that’s a little bit related to the ransom theory, that we’re paying–what, are we paying the devil ransom to free us? Then it’s like, well, do we want to pay the devil anything? So, I guess there’s some problems with that as well. But it is appealing to me that Christ was victorious over death and sin. Let’s celebrate that. He’s the king. Can you talk a little bit more about Christus Victor?
Eric 13:53 Yeah, and I think, actually, looking at it through a Book of Mormon lens, since we do have those expressions in the early books of the awful monsters, sin and death. And that’s kind of described almost as Satan. But I think Satan becomes the representative, if you will, for the fall, if that makes any sense. I mean, Christ is triumphing over the effects of the fall. And I know you want me to address that directly. But there is a subjective model that I am very attracted to, because late Pauline writings, and Johannine stuff, and I’m addicted to John, have a model that is a subjective model, which is participation. Somehow, we’re participating with Christ in what he’s experienced. And that is changing us. The Givens would say healing. But, Paul would say, occasionally, “I die daily.” Well, it’s not that the eternal spirit of Paul is dying daily, but rather his sinful nature or his mistakes are dying daily. One of the reasons why I’m so thrilled that we’re re-embracing the cross in Latter-day Saint experience in theology, is because what you have is this image of Christ carries not just our sins, but also our heartaches, our sorrows, our disappointments to the cross. When he died, those things had an end. Does that make sense? And so, it’s not just enough to suffer in the garden for it. I mean, they actually have to have an end. And because we participate with Christ, in that moment, our sorrow, our disappointment, our mistakes, have an end. But I think, back to your question, sorry for that little digression there. I just want to get participation.
GT 15:35 We go on tangents here. It’s okay.
Eric 15:37 That’s what you do, right? Gospel Tangents! (Both chuckling) But in terms of how I think we could look at Christus Victor, not as the devil demanding a ransom, but that idea of law. The results of sin and death are fixed. Christ overcame those. So, that would be the victor part of it. He’s triumphing over the natural consequences that follow. I would broaden it, not just because of moral volitional mistakes, we choose to do the wrong thing, that ‘s sin. We might, necessarily, get sick, suffer and die. That’s a physical consequence. But I would say physical disabilities or sicknesses or heartaches or disappointments, those things are overcome. Christ triumphs over those. That’s where we’d say, by participating, bring that in, those things are healed.
GT 16:36 Deidre do you have anything to add to that?
Deidre 16:40 No, I’ll leave it at that.
{End of Part 3}
Copyright © 2024
Gospel Tangents
All Rights Reserved
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 18:12 — 16.7MB) | Embed
Subscribe: Email | | More
