Systemic Complicity

Once upon a time...

There was a family that believed in God and called Jesus, “Lord.” They regularly attended church and the Bible was their sacred text. During their time at church the family listened to pastors and Sunday school teachers expound on passages from the Bible and at home they talked together about Bible stories. 

One of the family’s favorite Bible stories, in John 14, tells about a conversation that Jesus had with his disciples. In the story, Jesus explains that his Father’s house has many rooms and that he is going there to prepare a place for his followers. This story always led to an imaginative conversation in which the family dreamed about Jesus’ heavenly house. Samantha, twelve years old and two years older than Chloe, would say, “The rooms are enormous and the one with my name on the door is filled with comfy pillows and it has an ice cream Sunday bar!” Chloe would then say, “The room with my name on the door is filled with all of the dolls that I’ve ever wanted and it has its own bathroom with a bathtub so big that an elephant could sleep in it!” This always made the parents laugh. The mom would say, “Your dad and I will be happy just knowing that you’re in the house.” And the dad, usually quiet, would wipe tears from his eyes. 

One evening, as the parents were in the girls’ room tucking them into their beds, Chloe asked, “Mom, dad, how can we be sure that we get into Jesus’ house so that we can all be together?” The mom said, “Well that’s very simple, Chloe, all you need to do is to ask Jesus into your heart.” Chloe sighed with relief saying, “We’ve already done that!” To which the mom affirmed, “Yes you have dear. So rest in peace.” At this, the dad noticed that Samantha’s face was wrinkled up, deep in thought. He asked, “Samantha, what are you thinking about?” She said, “What will happen to our cousins and friends and neighbors who don’t ask Jesus into their hearts?” With a very serious and very sad face the mom replied, “Oh Samantha, those people won’t go to heaven.” Chloe, always effervescent, cried out, “Then where will they go when they die?” The mom and dad looked at each other with that knowing look, nodding together in agreement that now was the time. The dad cleared his throat and very quietly spoke, “Honey, anyone who doesn’t trust in Jesus will go to a place called “hell.” “Hell!” Chloe exclaimed. The mom said, “Hell is a dark place. It’s a sad place. And it’s a place that a person goes to forever.”

Ten years later... 

The Easter service had been dazzling—the flowering cross, everyone dressed up in their Sunday best, flower arrangements stationed throughout the sanctuary, plentiful as manna, and the sermon in which the pastor declared, “Christ is risen!” as the people enthusiastically responded, “He is risen indeed!”  

Back at home the mom placed a roast on the table laden with sparkling juice, green beans, buttered rolls, tossed salad, and cubed potatoes. The three of them took their seats. They held hands and the dad prayed, “God, thank you for this day that remembers Jesus’ resurrection. Thank you that our place in heaven is secure. We ask once again, with our whole hearts, that you would be with Samantha, wherever she is. We miss her being in our lives, so much. We know that she thinks that she is following you. We know that she thinks that she is saving the world by being part of that group. But please. Please help her to see that she’s part of a cult. Help her to see that leaving everything that she knows—her family, her friends, her work, her whole life—is not your desire or your plan. Amen.” At this, the dad, mom, and Chloe looked at each other, shared a pained smile, squeezed each other’s hands, and began to eat their Easter brunch.

Systemic Complicity
The family is convinced that Samantha has lost her way by joining an apocalyptic commune to proclaim that the end of this world is very near and to choose Jesus, or else. But has she really lost her way? Her parents were very clear, remember? “Honey, anyone who doesn’t trust in Jesus will go to a place called hell.” Is it possible that Samantha believes that which she was told about heaven and hell more deeply and more fervently than the people who told her this “truth?” And how about a husband who tells his wife, “Shut up! Listen to me. I’m the head of this house.” Is it possible that he more deeply and fervently believes that which he is told about wives submitting to their husbands in a church where only men speak and lead? Or how about a group of teenagers who mock and jeer at a trans-woman, calling her a “monstrosity” and “ungodly?” Is it possible that they more deeply and fervently believe that which they are told about LGBTQ people and culture in a church where only straight people can serve, become members, and hold leadership positions? Or how about a man who shoots up a mosque and decimates a non-Christian faith community? Is it possible that he believes more deeply and fervently—than even Samantha—that every person who does not trust in Jesus will go to a place called hell, forever? 

It is more than possible. Religious extremism is not ex nihilo. Extremism is rooted in the stories that we tell and in the systems in which we participate. If we perpetuate stories and participate in systems that—at their very essence—are gendered, homophobic, or exclusive, then we are culpable when the result is misogynistic, bigoted, or violent behavior. You see, the problem is not him, her, or them. The problem is us because it’s directly related to the religious stories that we tell and to the religious systems in which we participate. Yes, I get it. You would never do such a thing. But to be clear, it isn’t because you are a more descent human being. In most cases it is because you don’t believe in the religious stories or systems that you exist within, as deeply and as fervently as others. 

My point here is not to blame. My point here is to rouse realization. Stories and systems give shape to beliefs, values, and behavior. And when we perpetuate stories or participate in systems that are gendered, homophobic, or exclusive, then we are complicit when a person behaves in a way that more deeply and fervently embodies the essence of our stories and systems. 

A Bible Problem
A possible retort to this logic could be: “Our stories and systems come from the Bible!” For me, a statement like that raises two questions. First, are gendered, homophobic, and exclusive stories and systems reasonable? Before answering, remember that “reasonable” is an adjective that describes sensible, rational, common sense. With this in mind, is it reasonable to think that men have inherent authority over women? Is it reasonable to think that sexual orientation and attraction is always and only, distinctly gender binary? Is it reasonable to think that billions of people who do not believe in Jesus will go to a place called hell, forever? 

It’s possible that your answer may be something like, “Well, if it weren’t for what the Bible says, then these stories and systems may not be reasonable. But the Bible is clear.” And this brings me to a second question, which is, what exactly is the Bible? If you’re reading this reflection and thinking, “If it weren’t for what the Bible says, then these stories and systems may not be reasonable.” then you’re probably a person who thinks of the Bible as inerrant and you very likely attempt to read the Bible literally. However, this is a very modern, very western, very white, and very masculine way of understanding the Bible. For a deeper dive into the Bible take a moment to read this reflection on a more ancient way to think about it. In short, there is a historically supported and theologically sensible way of reading the Bible that invites us to wrestle with scripture, in community with others, with sensitivity to human consciousness, in order to discern goodness for today.

Faithfully reading the Bible does not mean that you must exist in violent story telling and religious systems. Much the opposite, in fact. The Bible leads us to Jesus who invites his followers to subvert stories and systems that harm, entrap, exclude, and dehumanize others, especially the marginalized among us.

Bold Change
As I write this reflection we’re in the midst of a world-wide pandemic and our country is in upheaval over the abhorrent abuse and murder of black men by white men who are in power. And so, we willingly quarantine, we give to organizations making a difference, we vote and write letters to government, and when possible, we march, hold hands, and scream. But as Christians living in this world in 2020, we can do more. We can recognize that our Christian stories and systems have very real impact. We can choose to say “no” to stories and systems that are gendered, homophobic, and exclusive. We can demand better from our Christian leaders and if they won’t listen, we can take practical steps to ensure that we are no longer complicit in the fruit that their stories and systems yield. Will you join me in choosing bold change?

Here are a few suggestions for how you can practically participate in bold change:

• Learn about your church’s structure, dogma, and doctrine. 

• If your church’s structure, dogma, and doctrine are gendered, homophobic, or exclusive, write a letter to your pastor or board to express your concern and disagreement.

• If your pastor or board is unwilling to consider change, talk to others in your community and ask them to write letters to express their concern and disagreement.

• If your pastor or board is still unwilling to consider change, then stop giving. No longer support a community’s systemic complicity.

• If your pastor or board is still unwilling to consider change, talk to others in your community and ask them to stop giving. Choose together to no longer support a community’s systemic complicity.

• If your pastor or board is still unwilling to consider change, find another faith community. A whole host of non-violent, wonderfully inclusive Christian communities exist for you to explore and to join. Here’s a link to a helpful organization that exists to clarify church policies.

• Lastly, consider pointing people to this reflection on social media as a way to raise awareness and to encourage honest conversation about the churches we choose to call “home.”

Christian Captivity in Paul's Atonement

This reflection expounds on a primary focus within black theology—liberation—and it urges western christians to make an exodus out of their captivity in Paul’s atonement in order to participate in an atonement that flows with milk and honey.

To begin, a primary focus within black theology is liberation.

Liberation by a God,
who reveals solidarity with the oppressed,
in Jesus.

This definition is central to black theology’s understanding of atonement. Now, atonement—put simply—refers to a reconciled state between two parties that were formally alienated. And within christian perspective, atonement is accomplished through the death and resurrection of Jesus.

I realize that this language is heavily theological but please stick with me because it’s really important, especially for western christians held captive by Paul’s primary focus on atonement.

A White Gospel, Suspicious of Liberation
I attended a conservative, primarily white, evangelical seminary in the late 90s and early 2000s. While at seminary, I was repeatedly warned about the grave danger of black theology. To be clear, nobody said, “Be warned about black theology.” It was much more subtle than that. Instead, I was exhorted, “Be very cautious about ‘liberation theology.’” The reasoning was, “biblical.”

The expanded version went something like this: Be very cautious about liberation theology because its focus on liberation and hope in the midst of suffering—although important and necessary—aren’t central to the gospel.

According to my seminary training and white, conservative theology, “Central to the gospel” is the shedding of Jesus’ blood on a cross, which is necessary for God to forgive humans of their sins.

Believe this gospel and go to heaven.
Fail to believe this gospel and go to hell.

Now, I’m going to split a theological hair here and you may want to roll your eyes at its seeming meaninglessness. But if you stick with me, I believe this will begin to make important sense and have deep relevance for life, today.

Believing in the the shedding of Jesus’ blood on a cross as necessary for God’s forgiveness can be gospel. But technically speaking, this is a theological statement about atonement.

A Brief Explanation on Gospel as Good News
Gospel, put simply, is the declaration of good news. That’s why Jesus walks into the synagogue in Luke chapter 4 and reads, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news”—from the Greek, euagellion, literally, gospel.

And what is the good news; what is the gospel, according to Jesus? Well, Jesus is very clear. It’s:

• Freedom from bondage,

• healing for the sick,

• release for the oppressed,

• and the proclamation of God’s favor on everyone.

According to Jesus, that’s gospel. It’s gospel, you see, because it’s truly good news. Think about it. If you’re in bondage and suddenly freed. Or if you’re sick and suddenly healed. Or if you’re oppressed and suddenly released. Or if you’re unfavored and suddenly favored. That is always—in every circumstance and generation—good news.

Over the years I’ve come to find this to be a very helpful way to think about the gospel of Jesus: The gospel of Jesus is actually, honestly, reasonably, and truly, good news.

A Brief Explanation on Atonement
“Well that sounds real nice Mike, but what about Jesus, the cross, and the shedding of blood?” Excellent question. When we ask that question, we’re deep in the theological world of atonement. As previously mentioned, christian atonement is the meaning-making of Jesus’ death and resurrection in order to reconcile estranged parties.

A Brief Explanation on Paul’s Atonement as Good News
Here’s where things begin to get real interesting. Which New Testament author wrote the most about the meaning of Jesus’ shed blood on the cross, which brings about the forgiveness for sins? Answer: Paul.

Paul’s primary understanding of atonement is that Jesus’ shed blood and death on the cross fulfilled the requirements of Israel’s sacrificial system, thereby pleasing God. And ultimately—according to Paul—those who believe in Jesus’ shed blood on the cross receive forgiveness, thereby entering into relationship with God. For Paul, this particular aspect of atonement is good news—that is to say, gospel.

Accommodating for Paul’s Atonement
About this, I’d like us to consider the question, “Why?” Why is an atonement in which those who believe in Jesus’ shed blood on the cross to receive forgiveness, thereby entering into relationship with God, good news for Paul?

Now, depending on your background, you may answer, “Because that’s what God told Paul to write.” Or, you may answer, “Because that’s what the Bible says.” But to be clear, those answers rise from a framework in which the Bible is infallible and inerrent, which is a modern construct for the Bible that is unreasonable and creates a whole bunch of difficulties for christianity today.

---

To learn more about the problems of infallibility and inerrancy, and to learn more about a wonderfully ancient and historical way of thinking about the Bible, pause from reading this reflection, read a reflection that I wrote titled, Harmonization and Accommodation, and then come back.

---

Prior to the enlightenment and later generations, words like “infallible” and “inerrent” weren’t really used to describe the Bible. It’s important to remember that the Bible was written by humans who were inspired, but even inspiration could not overcome the biblical authors’ own cultures and contexts. For example, the biblical authors could not conceive of a world in which slavery didn’t exist. Therefore, even though the abolition of slavery is good, just, and accords with the heart of God in whom we all move, breathe, and have our being, the biblical authors never appeal for emancipation. Similarly, the biblical authors could not conceive of a world in which women were equal with men. Therefore, even though gender equality is good, just, and accords with the heart of God in whom we all move, breathe, and have our being, the biblical authors never advocate for it. The list of examples that demonstrate the biblical authors’ cultural and societal limitations goes on and on.

With this in mind, I’d like to ask the same question, again: Why is an atonement in which those who believe in Jesus’ shed blood on the cross to receive forgiveness, thereby entering into relationship with God, good news for Paul?

Answer: Because, before encountering Jesus, Paul was a Pharisee. That is to say, before encountering Jesus, Paul was an expert in the Law. Paul was an expert in the law, with all of its regulations and sacrifices. And so, think with me here. Paul has his vision in which Jesus asks him, “Why are you persecuting me?” Paul then decides to follow after Jesus. But as a good Pharisee—in order to follow after Jesus—Paul has to do some work. Paul has to figure out how Jesus fulfills the regulations and sacrifices that give shape to how he understands the world as a Pharisee. And the end result is Paul’s primary perspective on atonement, which is: Jesus’ shed blood on a cross fulfills the Law; Jesus’ shed blood on a cross is the perfect sacrifice. And this is—for Paul—deeply and pervasively, good news. That is to say, it’s gospel, because it sets Paul free.

Who is Paul’s Focus on Atonement Good for, Today?
With this context in mind there are two types of people today, for whom Paul’s primary expression of atonement is good-news-gospel.

First, Paul’s primary expression of atonement is good-news-gospel for people today who read the Bible and say, “God said it, I believe it.” Even if it means that they have to believe in a God who requires blood—the blood of his own son, in particular—to forgive sins.

These people—because of their post-enlightenment perspective and evangelical view on the Bible—must respond to Paul’s atonement with something like, “I don’t care, sure, maybe it’s weird or seemingly unnecessary or even violent, but God said it and so I believe it.”

A second type of person for whom Paul’s primary expression of atonement is good-news-gospel today is for people who do not need physical freedom, physical healing, physical release, or the experience of societal favor—the gospel according to Jesus in Luke 4.

Thinking in terms of who that person is today, in the United States? It is middle-upper class, straight, white citizens. This is a salient critique by black theology. You see, a theology that’s articulated by people of privilege tends to turn core biblical stories—stories about freedom from bondage, healing the sick, releasing the oppressed, and challenging violent systems of power—into metaphor.

Now, having shifted the focus from liberation here and now to forgiveness and eternal life, privileged theology is able to use biblical language about liberation without lifting a finger to liberate. And of course liberation from oppression is good—but because it’s not central to a privileged gospel, it isn’t central to christian life.

Are you beginning to see some of the connections? Baked into a privileged people reading Paul’s atonement in which belief in Jesus’ shed blood saves sinners:

People of privilege—middle-upper class, straight, white citizens of the United States—only need a spiritual salvation because their lives are already good.

Baked into a privileged people reading Paul’s atonement in which belief in Jesus’ shed blood saves sinners:

People of privilege—middle-upper class, straight, white citizens of the United States—don’t have to help liberate those who are oppressed, because—as they see it—that’s not truly gospel.

And baked into a privileged people reading Paul’s atonement in which belief in Jesus’ shed blood saves sinners:

People of privilege—middle-upper class, straight, white citizens of the United States—are able to maintain center stage, telling everyone around them what they must think and do in order to belong to be saved.

A Privileged Gospel is a Racist Gospel
And this? Well this—among other things—foments a racist gospel.

Remember, “gospel” literally means “good news.” And this particular news that we’ve been discussing is only good for those who see the Bible a certain way or for those who have no physical need for help or liberation. And so, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. wrote in his Letter from Birmingham Jail:

I have heard many ministers say: "Those are social issues, with which the gospel has no real concern." And I have watched many churches commit themselves to a completely other worldly religion which makes a strange, un-Biblical distinction between body and soul, between the sacred and the secular.”

In response to black suffering, white theology has offered forgiveness from sins and relief in heaven; in response to calls for black equality, white church structures have offered integration: you can come where we are, so long as it does not change who we are and how we do things, so long as our values, our language, our culture, our voices are still in control.

And speaking directly to white American theology on atonement and—interestingly enough—to Black churches caught up in white theology, the great black theologian James Cone wrote in his book, The Cross and the Lynching Tree:

I accept Delores William’s rejection of theories of atonement as found in the Western theological tradition and in the uncritical proclamation of the cross in many black churches.

I find nothing redemptive about suffering in itself. The gospel of Jesus is not a rational concept to be explained in a theory of salvation, but a story of God’s presence in Jesus’ solidarity with the oppressed, which led to his death on the cross.

What is redemptive is the faith that God snatches victory out of defeat, life out of death, and hope out of despair, as revealed in the biblical and black proclamation of Jesus’ resurrection.

Perhaps this is a helpful way to think about it. If you were a black child, woman, or man in 19th century United States and you witnessed the lynchings of family or friends or neighbors by white christians who lynched in the name of God and justice, is an atonement explaining that God killed Jesus on a tree in order to forgive sins, good news? Is that a good gospel?

No. It is in fact, horrifying news.

“But Mike, it’s in the Bible!” Yes, and fortunately for we white people it’s good news because our privilege only requires a spiritual salvation. It’s good news for we white people because we don’t live in a country in which our forbearers were captured, chained, shipped, raped, enslaved, and hung on trees.

Not only is it unequivocally violent to demand that a person believe in the goodness of a Divine death penalty in order to be saved, but in light of black lives crying out for the good news of liberation, it is wrong—horrifically wrong—for white people to demand that any marginalized person believe in a gospel that isn’t truly good for their lives or situations.

What about Forgiveness?
To be clear, I’m not intending to say that forgiveness isn’t important. Every person feels bad about their mistakes and sins. Every person holds the weight of burden and regret. And stories and tables that praise, sing, and evoke the reality of Divine forgiveness are deeply necessary and christian. But again, to continue trying to be clear, God was in the business of forgiveness long before Jesus died on a cross. Throughout the Hebrew Scriptures God was forgiving sins. And moving into the New Testament, Jesus himself was forgiving sins long before he was hung on a tree.

And so, here’s the thing: If Paul’s primary aspect on atonement helps you to know and to receive forgiveness and to belong in God, wonderful. That’s good-news-gospel for your life and situation. But there must be more, ever-more good news. Put frankly, good-news-gospel must be freed to be truly good for everyone—especially the other—in every generation.

A Brief Historical and Biblical Overview on the Evolution of Atonement
“Ahh, but Mike, isn’t this relativism?” I don’t think so. I think a better word may be rele-vant. For this is the only way to ensure that good-news-gospel doesn’t get hijacked by those who hold all the power.

More so, to engage in the ongoing work of making relevant meaning of Jesus’ death on a tree—the work of atonement—is a work that’s supported both historically and biblically. I’ll briefly explain.

---

To learn more about the essence and evolution of atonement, pause from reading this reflection, read a reflection titled, Good News, The Essence of Atonement, and then come back.

---

Historically speaking—over the centuries—different social mores and societies have emphasized different aspects of christian atonement based on its relevance. For example, in the earliest years the majority of christians thought that atonement was primarily for the devil. In later years the majority of christians thought that atonement was primarily for God. And in still later years christians began to think that atonement was primarily for humans. Here’s what I mean…

A Brief Historical Overview: A Satan-Ward Atonement
To the surprise of many, the earliest understanding of atonement in church history is that Jesus’ death was for the devil. This perspective is called “Christus Victor.” According to this theory, atonement dealt with a Divine conflict and victory during which Christ—Christus Victor—fought against and triumphed over evil because Jesus used his own body as bait to catch Satan who controlled the world.

A Brief Historical Overview: A God-Ward Atonement
Now, if you think that way of understanding atonement is a bit absurd, you’re not alone. By the eleventh century came the demise of Christus Victor’s satan-ward focus on atonement. Put frankly, Anselm of Canterbury wrote, “Supposing that the devil, or man, were his own master, or belonged to someone other than God, or was permanently in the power of someone other than God, then perhaps one could justly speak in those terms.” In other words, the world isn’t held by a devil because we are all held in and by God.

You see, Anselm and many of his contemporaries couldn’t conceive of a world somehow held in bondage by a devil. And so, believing that God alone is in power, not satan—satisfaction theory rose into prominence. According to satisfaction theory—which very much aligns with Paul’s primary focus on Jesus’ death and the social mores of feudalism— God needed Jesus’ blood as payment in order to be satisfied.

A Brief Historical Overview: A Human-Ward Atonement
But then came along Peter Abelard who—like Anselm of Canterbury—could not logically conceive of a world held in bondage by a devil. However, he also could not conceive of a God-ward atonement. Abelard struggled to imagine the goodness of a blood thirsty God saving humans by killing Jesus. And so, Abelard explained what’s been called “Humanistic Theory,” in which Jesus’ death wasn’t for satan or for God, but for humans who need to know the amazing depth of God’s love for humanity, which is demonstrated by Jesus’ self-giving on the cross.

It’s out of this perspective that Cone explains the atonement as “Divine Solidarity” in which God—in Jesus—suffers with all who suffer. Furthermore—according to Cone—in Jesus’ resurrection those who unjustly suffer and die have the hope of rising like Christ, into new life.

And so you see, church history reveals an evolution in the meaning of Jesus’ atonement based on the needs and perspectives of the times.

A Brief Biblical Overview: Satan-Ward, God-Ward, and Human-Ward Atonement
Surprisingly, the Bible actually affirms these various directions of atonement. In Revelation 12 we read that Jesus’ blood frees humans from the devil’s accusations—Satan-ward atonement. In Romans 3 we read that Jesus’ blood appeases the Divine who forgives sins—God-ward atonement. And in Romans 5 we read that Jesus’ death proves God’s love—human-ward atonement.

Surpassing all of these biblical perspectives is a transcendent view on atonement found in Colossians 1. It reads, “For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven.” Isn’t that beautiful?

According to Colossians:
Anything and everything,
On earth or in heaven,
Is reconciled to God, through Jesus. 

That’s how big and buoyant and relevant Jesus’ death on the cross can be, if we only allow it.

Concluding Thoughts
As I understand it, church history and the Bible invite us into the ongoing meaning-making of atonement as good news for today, with a few constraints that I’ll state as questions:

• Is this way of understanding Jesus’ death on the cross truly good news?

• Does this way of understanding Jesus’ death on the cross rouse more and more freedom?

• Does this way of understanding Jesus’ death on the cross rouse more and more healing for the sick?

• Does this way of understanding Jesus’ death on the cross rouse more and more release for the oppressed?

• Does this way of understanding Jesus’ death on the cross rouse more and more proclamation of God’s favor on everyone? Yes, sure, spiritually but more importantly, literally?

If the answer to these questions is a hearty “yes” then we are on the path to the good-news-gospel that the Divine is working here, now, today.

Finally, church history and the Bible insist that whoever has been set free, healed, and included in the beloved community of God, must keep asking—again and again—“Whose next?” And whoever is next must have a voice in the meaning-making of atonement so that it’s truly good for their lives and situations, today. This you see is a dynamic, always-evolving atonement that continues the work of God in Jesus. This is the way in which atonement frees us from a static cross, a violent cross, and a perpetually racist cross in which the privileged hold the keys to an impotent salvation that means very little to those who truly suffer.

And so, black theology shines Divine light on the meaning of Jesus’ death, which is liberation found through God’s solidarity with all who suffer. And this prescient understanding urges white, straight, privileged western christians to make an exodus out of their captivity in Paul’s atonement in order to participate in an atonement that flows with milk and honey, here and now.

Good News, The Essence of Atonement

Atonement is essential to Christian thought. In its most simple form, atonement refers to a reconciled state between parties that were formerly alienated in some manner (Robert S. Paul, The Atonement and the Sacraments, 20). However, as important as this word is said to be, you may find it interesting to know that the word “atonement” isn’t actually used in the New Testament. Isn’t that curious? Atonement is a—if not the—paramount concept in Christian perspective. Many theologians would heartily state that atonement is the whole point of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection. Others, being less bombastic, would say that atonement is central to the meaning of the gospel. Yet, as important as this word is said to be, it is altogether absent from the New Testament.

A Brief Word Study
In the New Testament, at least two English translations—the NRSV and NIV—attempt the word “atonement” twice and the word “atoning” another two times. However, these translations aren’t precise usages for what’s in the Greek. Forgive me for this brief translation lesson, but it’s important. Romans 3:25, Hebrews 2:17, 1 John 2:2, and 1 John 4:10 all contain the Greek root hileos. Hileos refers to being favorably disposed, with implication of overcoming obstacles that are unfavorable to a relationship (BDAG). In these particular verses, we’re told that Jesus’ shed blood is a sacrifice, which allows God to forgive sins. While the idea that Jesus’ blood allows God to forgive sins fits within the theological conception of atonement—I.e.: the reconciling of alienated parties—the NAS’ translation of hileos as “propitiation” is more appropriate. Propitiation means “to appease a god,” which is exactly what these four verses describe. As we’re about to see, propitiation is certainly an aspect of atonement, but it doesn’t sufficiently capture the totality of meaning and nuance that’s associated with atonement as a theological concept.

A Conceptual Notion
Because the word “atonement” doesn’t actually exist in the Greek, it is a conceptual notion. That is to say, because we can’t simply look at how the word “atonement” is used in the New Testament to derive meaning, we’re left to consider expressions of alienation between two parties who are reconciled. We then point at each expression and say, “That’s atonement.” This is the only way to impute theological meaning into a word that doesn’t exist in the Bible. 

What follows is the New Testament’s multifaceted articulation of alienation between two parties who are reconciled. I.e.: Biblical conceptions of atonement. Rather than exhaustively demonstrate each kind of atonement with numerous verses, I’m merely providing one reference for each conception. 

In Romans 3:23-25a, atonement results in
propitiation—
Jesus’ blood appeases the Divine
who forgives sins.

In Romans 5:6-8, atonement results in
proof of love—
Jesus’ death for strangers
demonstrates Divine affection.

In Romans 5:1-2, atonement results in
peace—
Faith in Jesus justifies humans.

In Galatians 4:3-5, atonement results in
freedom—
Jesus’ life redeems humans
from being under Law. 

In Ephesians 2:11-16, atonement results in
reconciliation—
Jesus’ blood makes two races, one.

In Hebrews 9:13-14, atonement results in
innocence—
Jesus’ blood cleanses
human consciences.

In Hebrews 9:24-25, atonement results in
the end of sacrificial systems—
Jesus’ blood satiates
Divine need for sacrifice.

In Revelation 12:10-11, atonement results in
silence—
Jesus’ blood frees humans
from the devil’s accusations. 

In Hebrews 13:11-12, atonement results in
holiness—
Jesus’ blood makes humans
acceptable to the Divine.

According to these passages—and many more just like them—atonement is about much more than mere propitiation. Atonement makes for peace, freedom, reconciliation, innocence, and holiness. Atonement silences demonic accusation and it proves Divine love. 

The Evolution of Atonement’s Direction
Beyond that which atonement accomplishes, the significance of who atonement is for has an interesting history of evolution. Over the centuries, some have thought that atonement is primarily for God. Others have thought that atonement is primarily for humans. Still others have thought that atonement is primarily for the devil. Let me explain. 

Satan-Ward Atonement
To the surprise of many, the earliest understanding of atonement in church history is that it was for the devil. This perspective is called “Christus Victor.” According to this theory, “The idea of the atonement [is] a Divine conflict and victory; Christ—Christus Victor—fights against and triumphs over the evil powers of the world, the ‘tyrants’ under which mankind is in bondage and suffering” (Gustaf Aulén, Christus Victor, 4). 

It may be helpful for me to put this idea in historical language. Irenaeus explains, “For he [Jesus] fought and conquered; for He was man contending for the fathers, and through obedience doing away with disobedience completely: for He bound the strong man [satan], and set free the weak…” (Ante-Nicene Fathers, Against Heresies, 3.18.6). Rufinus is even more clear in explaining that atonement is for the devil. He writes, “For the object of that mystery of the Incarnation which we expound just now was that the divine virtue of the Son of God, as though it were a hook concealed beneath the form and fashion of human flesh… might lure on the Prince of this world [satan] to a conflict, to whom offering His flesh as a bait, His divinity underneath might catch him and hold him fast with its hook, through the shedding of His immaculate blood” (Nicene and Post-Nicene, Rufinus, A Commentary on the Apostles’ Creed, 16).

As wild as this perspective may seem, please note that both Irenaeus and Rufinus, along with the majority of their contemporaries, sincerely believed that humankind was in literal bondage under satan, which kept them from relationship with the Divine. For this reason, in their minds, atonement occurred through an actual fight in which Jesus’ death was “bait” that would “catch [satan] and hold him fast with its hook,” freeing humans to enter into relationship with God.

God-Ward Atonement
If you think that this way of understanding atonement is a bit absurd, you’re not alone. By the eleventh century came the demise of Christus Victor’s satan-ward focus on atonement. Put frankly, Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109) writes, “For, supposing that the devil, or man, were his own master, or belonged to someone other than God, or was permanently in the power of someone other than God, then perhaps one could justly speak in those terms” (Anselm of Canterbury, Why God Became Man, I.7). It’s this precise perspective—that God alone is in power, not satan—from which satisfaction theory, arises.

According to satisfaction theory, atonement is necessarily directed toward God because humans are depraved and in debt, cannot repay their debt, and are in need of making satisfaction to God, which is made by Jesus’ shed blood on a cross. In this theory, Jesus’ shed blood fulfills God’s requirement of satisfaction (Anselm of Canterbury, Why God Became Man, I.18). 

This theory became prominent in The Reformation and was antecedent to the notion of penal substitution. More so, this conception of atonement caught fire in the 1700s when preachers like Jonathan Edwards began preaching hell and brimstone to New England settlers. Anyone familiar with evangelicalism understands this message because it is, for most evangelicals, the meaning of atonement and the work of the gospel.

Human-Ward Atonement
Around the same time as Anselm’s satisfaction theory came Peter Aberlard (1079-1142) who, like Anselm of Canterbury, could not logically conceive of a satan-ward atonement. However, he also could not conceive of a God-ward atonement. Aberlard struggled to imagine the efficacy of a blood thirsty God saving humans by killing Jesus. Thus, he explains that reconciliation occurs between humanity and Divinity when humans observe God to be kind, as opposed to vindictive (Peter Aberlard, Ethics: Know Yourself, I. 161-166). Aberlard’s human-ward focus on atonement is often referred to as “Humanistic Theory,” which explains that the work of Christ consists in demonstrating to the world the amazing depth of God’s love for humanity. 

Although Aberlard’s human-ward atonement didn’t catch on at the time, its focus on humankind’s struggle to trust in God’s love had resonance during The Reformation in the writings of, for example, Faustus Socinus (1539-1604) as a counter argument to penal substitution. More so, human-ward atonement has found incredible resonance with Christian mystics. Francis of Assisi, Bonaventure, Julian of Norwich, and Teilhard De Chardin, along with contemporary mystics such as Matthew Fox, Ilia Delio, and Richard Rhor all emphasize the atonement as human-ward. For these, the death of Jesus is an expression of God’s love, resulting in reconciliation. Rhor succinctly explains human-ward atonement writing, “Jesus did not come to change the mind of God about humanity; Jesus came to change the mind of humanity about God” (Richard Rhor, “Love, Not Atonement,” 5/4/2017, cac.org).

Summary
As I see it, in 2021, we find ourselves in a place much like that of Anselm of Canterbury in the eleventh century. Anselm—due to the slow but steady progression of human consciousness—couldn’t fathom the need for an atonement that used Jesus as bait to hook the devil thereby freeing humanity from his demonic clutches. Similarly, many today cannot fathom a Divinity in need of his child’s spilt blood in order to forgive and to live in harmonious relationship with humans. This whole idea strikes most reasonable people as an ancient and barbaric way of seeing the world and understanding God. Yet, depending on the consciousness of individuals today, it’s possible to find expression for each direction of atonement: some pentecostals emphasize a satan-ward atonement; evangelicals explain a God-ward atonement; many progressive Christians explain a human-ward atonement.

Atonement is What Matters
This context helps to situate us in the heart of the issue, which can be stated as a question: So what exactly is the meaning of atonement? Answer: The story of Jesus’ death on a cross is exactly what you need it to mean in order to rest into your inextricable union with all things—God, creation, self, and others.

Now, before deciding that I’m awash in relativism, please hear me out. First, as we’ve observed, the word “atonement” does not exist in the New Testament. Therefore, it is a conceptual notion that imports its meaning from many different Bible passages that articulate all kinds of alienation, which are then said to be reconciled—atoned for—by Jesus. Second, as we’ve also observed, church history reveals an evolution in the direction of atonement, depending on human consciousness—sometimes devil-ward, sometimes God-ward, and sometimes human-ward. 

With these points in mind, I’d like to conclude by commenting on a passage in Colossians that gestures toward the soul of atonement, which I’ve been saving. Paul writes in Colossians 1:19-20, “For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, and through Him to reconcile all things [my emphasis] to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven.” According to Paul, anything and everything, on earth or in heaven, is reconciled to God through Jesus. 

I believe that this is a helpful contribution to the conception of atonement; it’s also a fitting summary for this reflection. Does your perceived lack of propitiation, peace, freedom, innocence, holiness, etc., cause you to experience alienation? Paul explains that everything is reconciled through the Jesus story. Furthermore, do you think that the devil, God, your own heart, or any other person or thing is in need of atonement? Paul explains that the Jesus story satiates divinities and sets humanity free to realize and accept their union with all things.

This is the good news of atonement—
there is no alienation. 

This is the good news of atonement—
the Jesus story is a means
through which we come to appreciate
that all things,
are reconciled. 

Therefore, if the Jesus story is somehow constrained to result in just one aspect of atonement—for example, propitiation—then it is not robust enough to reflect the depth and breadth of atonement. And if the Jesus story is somehow construed to increase just one person’s sense of alienation, then it does not accurately reflect the good news of atonement. For at the heart of the Jesus story—according to the Bible, theology, and church history—is a beautiful conception called “atonement” which, if it truly be the essence of atonement, must function in every generation, every social more, and every heart, to reconcile whatever it is that we humans experience and name as, “estranged.”

Wisdom Grasping

In the marvelous land of story, nothing is more important than the inciting incident. The inciting incident is the essential point that evokes plot, the cause of ensuing chaos, and the key factor to understanding a story’s meaning. The interpretation of a story’s inciting incident therefore, deeply contours and colors how a person reads a story. Furthermore, a person’s understanding of the inciting incident influences what a person makes of a story. If, near a story’s end, the climax resolves the inciting incident, the story is a comedy. However, if the climax of the story fails to resolve the inciting incident, the story is a tragedy. 

Importance of a Story’s Inciting Incident
As an example of how important discerning a story’s inciting incident is, consider Peter Pan. The inciting incident is that Wendy, Jonathan, and Michael, struggle with growing up. And so, they fly off to Neverland where pirates and children are chased by time. Through plot filled with hilarity, play, romantic interest, and sword fighting, Wendy, Jonathan, and Michael make the difficult decision to return home in order to surrender to the very difficult but very normal task of maturing. For certainly, they have grown to understand that surrendering to time is a better choice than running from it and becoming perpetually ludicrous pirates or infantile children. This interpretation of the inciting incident makes continual sense of the plot throughout the story, which results in a comedy. I.e.: It is better to surrender to time than it is to run from time.  

Consider a different interpretation of the inciting incident. Wendy desires to win Peter Pan’s heart, and so, joined by her devoted brothers, they follow Pan to Neverland where they come to realize that Captain Hook, lost children, and every other swimming, dancing, and flying character are also in love with him. Over time, Wendy realizes that she will never completely win Pan’s heart and so she, along with her brothers, return home to live out their lives. This interpretation of the inciting incident results in a tragedy. I.e.: Pursuing love, even to a far-off world, promises a world of disappointment and sorrow. 

Now, this latter interpretation is obviously wrong. A romantic interest exists between Wendy and Pan. And yet, such a reading begins to make less sense as the story unfolds. Hook is not in love with Pan; he wants to kill him. The lost boys clearly love Pan, but not in a romantic kind of way. They appear to love Pan like Jonathan and Michael love Wendy. Furthermore, although Wendy, Jonathan, and Michael are somewhat melancholy about returning home, they are resolute that it is both good and right. 

If these interpretive clues are thoughtfully noticed then an incorrect inciting incident needs to be re-examined. Otherwise, the story’s plot will be regularly perplexing and ultimately fail to make sense as a whole. Perhaps worse, is a person who is unwilling to thoughtfully notice a story’s incoherence in light of the perceived inciting incident and who soldiers on despite ongoing dissonance. 

Re-examining the Bible’s Inciting Incident
I believe this Peter Pan example is important. Many of us have misinterpreted the Bible’s inciting incident, which has resulted in a misunderstanding of its plot, chaos, and overall meaning. Yet, despite the incoherence that this misunderstanding causes a person who reads the Bible, many of us were taught to put our heads down, believe it with all of our hearts, and by all means necessary, don’t ask questions–soldier on! This reflection intends the opposite response. It purposes to provide an ancient understanding of the Bible’s inciting incident, which results in a wonderfully coherent reading of the story, from beginning to end. I begin by debunking a misreading of the Bible’s inciting incident called “original sin” and then proceed to offer a more ancient interpretation that I’ll refer to as “wisdom grasping.”

Central to misreading the Bible’s inciting incident is a theory called “original sin.” Original sin is perceived to occur in Genesis chapter 3, which tells the story of Adam and Eve disobeying God by eating fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. As a result, God curses Adam and Eve and sends them outside of the garden–east of Eden. Based on this inciting incident, the theory of original sin states that the world was abruptly and catastrophically altered and human beings became inherently depraved.

The term “original sin” was coined by Augustine (354-430CE) in the Latin, peccatum originale. According to Augustine, after eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, Adam and Eve, and the world along with them, fell into utter depravity (City of God, 13.3). Furthermore, according to Augustine, this “fallenness” or “guilty nature” is transmitted through sexual union to Adam and Eve’s offspring (City of God, 13.14).

Original Sin Complications
Besides the incredible amount of pain and violence that this theory has caused by telling human beings that they are intrinsically depraved, utterly despicable, and born in wrath, at least three other glaring problems exist as a result of misinterpreting the Bible’s inciting incident. First, the theory of original sin is in conflict with much of the Bible, biology, evolution, theology, genre classification, and contemporary translation work. Second, original sin creates an interpretive lens for the Bible’s plot that is perplexing and ultimately fails to make sense of the overall story. Finally, those who hold to original sin often fail to appreciate more ancient and coherent readings of the Bible that derive from a different interpretation of the inciting incident. 

A Bible Problem
The words “original sin” are not in the Bible. Let’s start with that. And then, consider this: Judaism does not have a concept of original sin. In fact, following Genesis 3, Adam and Eve are rarely mentioned in the Hebrew scriptures. Isn’t that interesting? Much of western Christianity is grounded in a theory that is based on Adam and Eve who, outside of Genesis 3, receive almost no attention when they supposedly, according to the theory of original sin, physiologically changed the universe and depraved the souls of every human being. Besides being absent from the Hebrew Scriptures, Jesus does not mention original sin (that seems important to notice) nor do the remaining New Testament books in the Bible.

A Biology Problem
As previously mentioned, according to Augustine, after eating fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, Adam and Eve fell into utter depravity. Furthermore, according to Augustine, this “fallenness” or “guilty nature” is transmitted through sexual union to Adam and Eve’s offspring. Based on this theory, some thoughtful questions have been asked such as, can a guilty nature really be passed on through sexual union? That is to say, does this make sense in light of what we know today about DNA and the creation of a child? Do semen and an egg carry the weight of spiritual guilt? In my mind, the obvious answer to these three questions is no. Augustine was fashioning theology based on archaic and erroneous biological insights. 

An Evolution Problem
Continuing with science, many scholars do not think that there was an actual Adam and Eve. But for a moment, let’s say that they existed. Were Adam and Eve the progenitors of every human being? And if not, what about the humans who didn’t come from Adam and Eve? Did their sexual union pass on spiritual guilt? And if so, how, since these other human beings weren’t in the hereditary line of Adam and Eve? And speaking of evolution, was there ever a world without death? And if so, does this mean that carnivorous animals didn’t kill other animals prior to the world “falling” because it appears that there have been carnivorous animals in the world from the earliest stages of creatures in evolution. 

A Theology Problem
The theory of original sin raises questions about Jesus’ nature. In order to support a theory of original sin theologians have argued, according to Augustine’s theory, that Jesus was pure because his father is God, not Joseph. However, the theology of incarnation tells us that Jesus was fully God and human. And so, was Jesus fully human without the depraved nature, which makes Jesus less like all of us and more like Adam and Eve before they ate the fruit? Or, is Jesus like all of us, fully depraved? Neither option fits well within the theology of incarnation.

A Genre Classification Problem
The theory of original sin is a genre classification problem. Is the story of Genesis 1-3 literal and scientifically accurate or is it a creation narrative that speaks literarily? If Genesis 1-3 is literal then cosmology becomes problematic. For example, there is no firmament in the sky (Gen. 1:6-7), there could be no day and night on Day One of creation (Gen. 1:3-5) if the sun, moon, and stars were not created until Day Four (Gen. 1:14-19), and clearly, the world was not created in seven literal days. Also, if we’re reading the text honestly, snakes do not talk and trees do not contain fruit that when eaten alter the state every created thing.

For reasons like these, most scholars today read Genesis 1-3 as “functional origins.” Functional origin stories focus on order and function rather than literal materiality. And so, the creation and fall stories are not literally explaining what happened in the earliest days of our world; they are literarily explaining meaning. I.e.: Ultimate Reality is generative, creative, and personal; Ultimate Reality invites human kind into creative work, etc. 

A Translation Problem
Lastly, the theory of original sin is a translation problem. Augustine was working from a latin translation of Romans 5:12, which led him to believe that all sinned “in Adam” (John H. Walton, The Lost World of Adam and Eve, Proposition 17). However, the Greek text reads “because all have sinned” indicating that we all sin in the way of Adam rather than indicating that we all sinned in Adam (Walton; Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to Romans, 314-350; James D.G. Dunn, Word Biblical Commentary, 271-274). This distinction is significant. In the former reading, we are all, because of original sin, depraved at conception. In the latter reading, Adam is a typology for humankind—we all, like Adam, sin. Moo explains that this latter interpretation has nothing to do with original sin. Rather, it has to do with the way in which we all sin, like Adam, and this is the meaning adopted by most commentators today (Moo, 321). 

Original Sin Is A Problematic Interpretive Lens
If the theory of original sin explains the inciting incident then the climax of the story can be nothing more than transactional. That is to say, in Adam we are all depraved but in Christ we are all redeemed. Original sin as an interpretive lens simply says, “Yes, those people, patriarchs, nations, judges, and kings are bad, very bad. Our only hope is another Adam who gets it right and undoes what the first Adam got wrong.” 

Unfortunately, for many people this is the precise meaning of the gospel, which is understood to be the resolution to the inciting incident. But is this good news? One guy got it terribly wrong; another guy, albeit divine, got it right. And so, everyone living between Adam and Jesus were depraved, wretched, and without hope while our responsibility today is to simply trust in Jesus who somehow enters into our depraved souls and makes us clean. This doesn’t feel like good news. 

Furthermore, reading the Bible through the lens of original sin makes little sense of Genesis 4 through the end of each gospel when Jesus is crucified, buried, and resurrected. What is the purpose of the stories, poems, prayers, and prophetic messages spanning Genesis to Jesus’ crucifixion? What about Abraham, exodus out of Egypt, wandering in the wilderness, life in the promised land, messages from prophets, exile in Babylon, and the majority of Jesus’ life before his death? Is the story of the Bible just one long narrative awaiting the anti-Adam? And does the gospel proclaim nothing more than Jesus’ sacrificial death reverses Adam’s curse? And finally, if this is the gospel then I’d like to ask, why is the human-Adam able to catastrophically deprave all of humankind and the creation while the divine-Jesus is only able to “save” humans who “believe” and the “fallen” creation continues on unaltered? In my mind, this is not only a misreading of the Bible, but at its best this misreading culminates in a tragedy because Jesus does not resolve everything that supposedly went instantaneously wrong due to Adam. 

An Ancient Interpretation of Genesis 3
If you’re still with me, well done and thank you! Now I’d like to provide a more biblical and ancient way of reading the fall of Adam and Eve, in Genesis 3. Prior to the notion of original sin was the notion that humans are tasked with growing up from infancy to adulthood. About this process of growth, Irenaeus (130-202CE) explains:

But created things must be inferior to Him who created them, from the very fact of their later origin; for it was not possible for things recently created to have been uncreated. But inasmuch as they are not uncreated, for this very reason do they come short of the perfect. Because, as these things are of later date, so are they infantile; so are they unaccustomed to, and unexercised in, perfect discipline. For as it certainly is in the power of a mother to give strong food to her infant, as the child is not yet able to receive more substantial nourishment; so also it was possible for God Himself to have made man perfect from the first, but man could not receive this, being as yet an infant (Ante-Nicene Fathers, Irenaeus Against Heresies, 4.38.1).

Because it is physiologically impossible for humans to immediately grow up we must surrender to a life-long process of maturation. It is this very process that God invited Adam and Eve into, from the beginning. However, as Genesis 3 explains, they attempted perfect knowledge or what I call “wisdom grasping” by eating the fruit. Theophilus of Antioch (approximately 169CE) writes:

For there was nothing else in the fruit than only knowledge; but knowledge is good when one uses it discreetly. But Adam being yet an infant in age, was on this account as yet unable to receive knowledge worthily. For now, also, when a child is born it is not at once able to eat bread, but is nourished first with milk, and then, with the increment of years, it advances to solid food…. Besides, it is unseemly that children in infancy be wise beyond their years; for as in stature one increases in an orderly progress, so also in wisdom (Ante-Nicene Fathers, Theophilus to Autolycus, 2.25). 

Based on this perspective–which very much aligns with Eastern Orthodoxy’s interpretation of Genesis 1-3–the invitation to every person is to grow up into the wisdom and knowledge of God. However, when Adam and Eve attempted to gain perfect knowledge without going on the very human journey of life, they came to know shame, guilt, and the experience of distance from the Divine who invites us each to, over time, grow up into the wholeness and goodness of God.

Conclusion 
This interpretation of the Bible’s inciting incident changes many things. I’ll highlight two really important changes. First, Adam and Eve did not cataclysmically alter humankind and the creation; they are simply an example of humankind’s wisdom grasping to become like God without living life. This is good news. You are not inherently depraved. You are wonderfully glorious and full of potential. And yet, we humans have a proclivity to be perfect now, always now. But this merely leads to shame and guilt because we are not perfect. And so, like Adam and Eve, we hide in trees and cover ourselves with leaves. Let us be patient with ourselves and with each other. Wholeness and goodness take a lifetime to grow up into, which is the Divine invitation to every person.

Second, this interpretation of the Bible’s inciting incident helps to make sense of the story as a whole. The Bible’s stories, poems, prayers, and prophetic messages spanning Genesis to Jesus’ crucifixion bear witness to humankind’s slow march toward mature life in God, which is love. Jesus’ life then becomes a revealing of what mature life in God–perfect love–looks like. And finally, as opposed to wondering why Jesus’ death and resurrection didn’t immediately reverse the effects of original sin, we can interpret Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection as the anti-Adam narrative that demonstrates a loving way of being that ultimately, over time, results not only in our own wholeness but in this world’s wholeness, which is what we see at the end of the story:

Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from throne of God and of the Lamb through the middle of the street of the city. On the ether side of the river is the tree of life with its twelve kinds of fruit, producing its fruit each month; and the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations. Nothing accursed will be found there any more. But the throne of God and of the Lamb will be in it, and his servants will worship him; they will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads. And there will be no more night; they need no light of lamp or sun, for the Lord God will be their light, and they will reign forever and ever (Revelation 22:1-5). 

Harmonization and Accommodation

A Lovely Book
I love the Bible. Some of my earliest memories are of my mom reading me its stories. I can remember dear old saints teaching it to me on Sunday mornings. As I grew, I began to read it on my own. At one point, as an adolescent, I committed to a reading plan that took me through the Bible, cover to cover, three times a year. I did this for at least seven or eight years. In college I majored in the Bible. In seminary, I earned the degree, Master of Divinity. I know. Ridiculous. Then, throughout my doctoral studies, I have been able to examine biblical genres and their rhetorical functions. 

I love the Bible. Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, Noah, Abraham and Sarah, Jacob and all of his children, Moses, and all of those crazy judges, Kings David and Solomon, the prophets, Jesus and his twelve disciples, and that transfigured pharisee, Paul. These are kindred friends. And the stories! Creation, estrangement, flood, Babel, slavery, liberation, the giving of the Law on Mount Sinai, the wilderness, the land, the divided kingdom, exile from the land, Babylon and return to the land, the incarnation, the church, and the apocalyptic vision of the city of God descending on earth. These stories give shape to how I understand the world and my place in it. 

A Troubled Book
I love the Bible. And, I am troubled by this sacred book. Genesis 1:7 states that God made an expanse, a dome – literally, a firmament – in the sky. Ancient people actually thought this to be true. In their mind, there was some kind of solid firmament that hung in the heavens. At night, they thought that the stars were actually holes in the firmament that light shone through. And when it rained, they thought that water was spilling through those same holes. Of course, we now know that there is no firmament hanging in the sky. 

The book of Exodus explains that nearly a million Israelites were liberated from bondage. However, scholarship today reveals that around the time of Israel’s exodus, that Egypt was itself around a million people. Despite this mass exodus that would have reduced Egypt’s population by nearly fifty percent, there is no record of Israel’s exodus in any writings in or around Egypt at that time. This doesn’t mean that there was no exodus. In fact, there is general consensus that there was. However, it’s more likely that the number of Israelites liberated from bondage, was much smaller in number, than the biblical account. 

One more example. In Deuteronomy 20:16-18, the Lord is said to give this directive:

But as for the towns of these peoples that the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, you must not let anything that breathes remain alive. You shall annihilate them—the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites—just as the LORD your God has commanded, so that they may not teach you to do all the abhorrent things that they do for their gods, and you thus sin against the LORD your God.

But then, in contrast, we have a passage like Matthew 5:43-45, that reads: 

You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous.

So there you have it. In just a few examples, we have a cosmological contradiction, a historical contradiction, and a theological contradiction. What are we to do?

Harmonization
Well, growing-up, I wasn’t given any tools to do anything. As a child I was told that God doesn’t make mistakes, and so, since the Bible is God’s word, neither does the Bible. This in turn meant that when the Bible is contradicted by cosmology or history, then cosmology and history are clearly wrong, because the Bible is always right. As a student in theological studies, the solutions that I was given became even more perplexing. Using God’s directive to annihilate every person in the land as an example, I was offered a handful of possibilities that attempted to make sense of this difficult text:

• God in his sovereignty could have created these people for the sole purpose of destroying them. His judgment is providential.

• God knows all things, and so, he knew that the people in the land would never come to salvation. His judgment is just.

• God takes holiness seriously, and he did not want his people to be tempted and to stray into idolatry and sin. His judgment is loving.

Now, I could spend a lot of time writing about why these responses to mass genocide are concerning, but I’m going to hold-off on doing that to keep the big picture here. For the purpose of this reflection, I’m less interested in the answers that I was given for difficult texts, and I’m more interested in the construct through which these answers were given. You see, at the time I didn’t know it, and nobody named it, but the construct through which solutions to troubled texts were given to me, was called harmonization.

Harmonization is grounded in a belief that the Bible is perfect and without error (side-note: without error in the original manuscripts, which we don't actually have), because it is the very word of God. Therefore, any and all apparent contradictions – whether they be cosmological or historical or theological – are not truly contradictory. Either our cosmology or history is wrong. Or, our theological understanding is wrong. Either way, the Bible is right, and our theological work, in order to take this sacred text serious, is to harmonize any apparent contradictions. And it’s this construct that then “harmonizes,” for example, mass genocide in the name of a loving divinity with explanations such as providence, justice, and love. 

Accommodation 
For the longest time, I thought that this was my only option for reading the Bible if I was to truly love God and to take the scriptures serious. And over time, this became part of the impetus, for my crisis of faith. I got to the point where I was unwilling to do all kinds of mental gymnastics to harmonize troubling texts. Continuing with the example from Deuteronomy, if providence, justice, and love were the “solutions” to mass genocide in God’s name, I was out. I could no longer do it. It didn’t make any sense to me, and I didn’t want any part in spending the rest of my life attempting to harmonize a violent, blood thirsty God, who is Love.

Fortunately, my studies led me to another construct. Surprisingly, it’s a construct that is more ancient and historical than harmonization. It’s called accommodation. I’ll offer a definition in just a moment. First though, consider these words:

And therefore like a Tutor or Physician He partly removes and partly condones ancestral habits, conceding some little of what tended to pleasure, just as medical men do with their patients, that their medicine may be taken, being artfully blended with what is nice. For instance, in the first he cut off the idol, but left the sacrifices; the second, while it destroyed sacrifices did not forbid circumcision. Then, when once men had submitted to the curtailment, they also yielded that which had been conceded to them: in the first instance the sacrifices, in the second circumcision, and became instead of Gentiles, Jews, and instead of Jews, Christians, being beguiled into the Gospel by gradual changes.
Gregory of Nazianzus 329-390, Orations

Anything in the divine writings that cannot be referred either to good, honest morals, or to the truth of the faith, you must know is said allegorically. 
Augustine, 354-430, On Christian Doctrine

Undoubtedly the words of the literal text, when they do not agree with each other, show that something else is to be sought in them. 
Gregory the Great 590-604 Moralia in Job

If the literal sense of these Scriptures is absurd, and apparently contrary to reason then we should be obliged not to interpret them according to the letter, but to look out for a looser meaning. 
John Wesley 1703-1791, The Works of John Wesley

Not only part but all that they say [in the Bible] is historically related and conditioned. 
Karl Barth 1886-1968, Church Dogmatics

We must read this book of books with all human methods. But through the fragile and broken Bible, God meets us in the voice of the Risen One. 
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, 1906-1945, Reflections on the Bible

Gregory of Nazianzus. Augustine. Gregory the Great. John Wesley. Karl Barth. Dietrich Bonhoeffer. These giants of Christian faith are working with a biblical construct that is different than harmonization. 

Gregory of Nazianzus wrote about God’s patience with the slow progression of human consciousness. Augustine was so certain that some biblical texts failed to be good and honest that he determined to interpret them allegorically instead of literally. Gregory the Great and John Wesley were comfortable abandoning literal readings of the scriptures when they determined them to be in contradiction with each other, or just plain absurd. Barth made clear that the scriptures were set down in historically-culturally conditioned times. And Bonhoeffer referred to the Bible as fragile and broken. 

This is a different way of understanding the Bible and of reading it. A few key points:

• The Bible is the book of books, yet it is fragile and broken. (Bonhoeffer)

• Contradictory and absurd texts should be understood as something other than literal. (Augustine, Gregory the Great, Wesley)

• The Bible cannot escape the consciousness with which it was written. (Barth)

• The Bible reveals a progression of human consciousness that begins with Law – sacrifice, circumcision, etc. – but moves forward into Gospel – grace, good news, etc. (Gregory of Nazianzus)

This construct for the Bible is called accommodation. Accommodation is grounded in an understanding that the Bible–albeit sacred, inspired, the book of books–is penned by humans. Thus, recognizing and accepting the Bible’s mistakes and problems – “accommodations” or “condescensions” are made for the spiritual and/or intellectual limitations of its human authors. 

So, instead of trying to harmonize “a firmament in the sky,” one could note, “That’s how the ancient’s understood the world.” And instead of trying to harmonize a million person exile with historical findings that reveal otherwise, one could appreciate, “The meaning does not derive from this story’s literal-ness, but from its narratival-ness.” And instead of trying to harmonize mass genocide in God’s name, one could reason, “Every ancient people went to battle in their God’s name, but that doesn’t mean that their God actually commanded the annihilation of every man, woman, child, and animal.” 

Questions
Much could be written at this point. But I’m attempting a reflection, not a book. For me and my story of faith, accommodation redeemed my love for the Bible. It afforded me a historically supported, theologically sensible way of reading, understanding, and appreciating it. Yes, accommodation raises questions that harmonization does not, such as: When do we accommodate? Which texts should be read literally, and which should be read trans-literally? Who chooses when a text is absurd or contrary to reason? The questions could go on and on. Put simply, I’d rather wrestle with the questions that accommodation raises than I would with those that harmonization raises. 

Accommodation sets me to wrestling with a text, in community with others, with sensitivity to human consciousness, in order to discern the heart, voice, and pleasure of God for today. Harmonization, on the other hand, often feels like an attempt to protect the Bible from its foibles, in order to protect its legitimacy. I don’t think the Bible needs protection. I for one, love it. In all of its texture and complexity and nuance – a lot like life – I love it. And through its characters and stories I am realizing more and more a Divinity who through these very things – texture and complexity and nuance – is patiently moving humankind forward into love. And according to this biblical story, the Lord will not cease moving everything forward until the garden is cultivated into a radiant city of light, which is the consummation of peace in a world integrated by love.

I’ll conclude with an invitation to the Bible, by Bonhoeffer: 

The Bible remains a book like other books. One must be ready to accept the concealment within history and therefore let historical criticism run its course. But it is through the Bible, with all its flaws, that the risen one encounters us. We must get into the troubled waters of historical criticism. Its importance is not absolute, but neither is it unimportant. Certainly it will not lead to a weakening, but rather to a strengthening of faith, because the concealment within the historical belongs to the humiliation of Christ. 
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Christ the Center

Bible as Trajectory

I have often heard Christians decry the present state of the church, while looking back to the “Good ‘ole days.” The thinking goes something like this, “If we could just return to the first century, and live like the early church, then things would be much better.” At one point in my life I would hear such sentiment and I blithely assumed that it was correct. 

Today? 
No way. 

Rome. 
Racism. 
Slavery. 
Misogyny. 
No thank you. 

The crux of the problem here, as I understand it, is trajectory. Many Christians think of the Bible as a kind of moral manual for how we are to live our lives. With this mindset, we therefore must return to the Bible’s beliefs, constructs, and teachings, in order to get it right. While this makes some sense for those who think about the Bible in this way, it actually creates many more problems, in other ways. For example, the Bible doesn’t advocate for the abolition of slavery. Does that mean it’s okay? Another example. While women have some prominence throughout the New Testament (I.e.: monetarily supporting Jesus, the first to announce his resurrection, etc.), they are clearly less empowered to lead and to teach, than men. At times, women are told that they cannot even speak. Does this mean that this is okay, biblical, and the desire of the divine? Is the trajectory of our lives – in order to live biblically – to truly return to first century church ways of thinking and living? The Year of Living Biblically, anyone?

Now, to be fair, many Christians who would like to return to the good ‘ole days have ways of dealing with these conundrums. They’ll talk about the differences between cultural truths and ethical truths and ceremonial truths and moral truths. They’ll split hairs by saying things like, “This idea was for Paul’s day, whereas this idea is very much for us today.” However, the problem with this line of reasoning is subjectivity. There is no agreed upon rubric for such decision making. Each person or church or denomination seems to be less than honest in stating that tradition and experience are deeply influencing biblical interpretation. This is something I’ll post about more, at another time. For now, I’ll simply point out that any trajectory pointing backward, to the good ‘ole days, is racked with problems.

I’d like to propose that we understand the Bible as a trajectory that is forever pointing us forward. Let me explain. 

Gary Cutting, a philosopher at Notre Dame, writes in an article titled How Religion Can Lead to Violence, that violence in religion is often tempered by social mores. Using western Christianity as a case study he looks back and states that, overall, the church has been pulled forward by society’s sense of good. A couple examples could be racial equality or women’s rights. In general, the church lagged behind these good movements, until it could – due to society’s sense of human decency and justice – no longer do so. Therefore, Cutting concludes that society pulls religion forward. And in some ways he is right. But here’s the thing, it doesn’t have to be that way. In fact, I don’t think it should be that way.

Consider a few passages from the Bible: 

• Exodus 20:1-17, provided an ancient moral code.

• Numbers 35:6-15, demanded cities of refuge for those who accidentally killed someone to flee to and to dwell within so that the Revenger (yes this was an actual job title) could not exact revenge.

• Deuteronomy 21:10-14, established protocol allowing women who were captured in war to grieve for one month. Furthermore, if after taking a woman to bed the man found himself unhappy with the woman, he was prohibited from selling her and he was instructed to let her go wherever she wished. I know this is horrifying, but stick with me.

• Romans 14-15, differentiated between strong and weak consciences when it came to eating clean and unclean food and it encouraged acceptance of the “other.”

• Philemon, Paul wrote to a slave owner named Philemon and asked him to receive back a runaway slave named Onesimus, not as a slave, but as a brother.

Now, with these passages in mind, as terrible as they seem to us today, it should be observed that these were movements forward in the world. An ancient moral code in the midst of violent tribalism, was a movement forward. Refuge for the innocent when a Revenger was allowed to exact revenge, was a movement forward. Allowing space for a woman to grieve and to be set free as opposed to sold, was a movement forward. Making room for differences when it came to clean and unclean food, was a movement forward. Receiving back a runaway slave as a brother instead of as a slave, was a movement forward. 

Now of course, these movements do not go far enough. How about just putting an end to the notion and role of a Revenger, or treating women as human beings instead of property, or making room for differences beyond clean and unclean food, or abolishing slavery altogether? Yes, of course! But you see, to do so would have been unconscionable. Such consciousness about human rights and dignity were beyond ancient Israel, the early church, and the apostle Paul. However, in their day and age, these movements were radical, good, compassionate, and beautiful steps forward. 

Moving beyond specific examples, notice the progression of larger, biblical motifs: 

• From Law (Exodus 20:1-17) to love (Matthew 5:38-39, 43-45)

• From obedience (Deuteronomy 27-28) to grace (Romans 3-8)

• From differences (Genesis 28) to similarities (Galatians 3)

• From chaos (Genesis 3-11) to cosmic shalom (Revelation 21-22)

You see, in contrast to Cutting’s thesis – that violence in religion is often tempered by social mores – what if Christianity’s part in violence is the result of limiting the moral arc of progress in the Bible to the Bible? That is to say, what if, instead of insisting on a return to the moral codes of the Bible, we were to understand that the Bible makes manifest a trajectory toward endless human growth, inclusion, and love?

We would never say, “Let’s go back to Numbers 35, or Deuteronomy 21.” However, many Christians often say, “Let’s go back to the early church.”

Really?

Making room for differences when it comes to clean and unclean food, is not good enough. It is not far enough. Welcoming Onesimus as a brother instead of as a slave, is not good enough. It is not far enough. Do you see? Too often we are looking the wrong way. The Bible is not calling us backward, into the past. The Bible is attempting to point us forward.

More equality?
More inclusion?
More integration?

These are not movements that should frighten us and send us running back to the early church. No. These are divine movements in the world that we should laud, participate in, and give our entire selves to appreciate, for this – biblically speaking – is the trajectory of the divine.

I am therefore no longer willing to participate in a Christianity that is begrudgingly pulled forward by social mores. I desire to return to ancient roots. Roots grounded in provocative revolution that understand divine work in the world as any work cultivating ever-growing compassion, acceptance, love, and peace. And wherever it occurs? Whenever it occurs? I will point and declare, "There. There is the good work of God in the world!"