A Better Atonement Beyond the Depraved Doctrine of Original Sin
Tony JonesWhen, half a lifetime ago, I started as a student, some of my peers were studying theology, and I was wide-eyed at the concept that they had a whole prelims paper on the Atonement [that link tells me that this is no longer the case...interesting]. I couldn't quite believe that there was enough to say, or, indeed, enough dispute to get a good argument from. How naive I was!
I've always found the academic end of theology rather challenging - perhaps because I am not trained in the humanities or even the social sciences. This book isn't high-blown academic theology (well, I don't think it is; how could you tell?), but it's not an easy popular read, either. That's not to say that it's hard to read: indeed, Jones puts his easy, accessible writing to good effect here as elsewhere. It's just that the whole theological venture seems, well, arbitrary. The book is well-written, though it would have benefited from the attentions of an editor (a peril of self-publishing, I guess).
Many of the ideas previously appeared on Tony Jones' blog, so you can find some of it there. I enjoy Tony's blog, so buying a 'book' with a collection of articles from there didn't seem like a bad idea. [Aside. It's ironic that the spell-check on this web-based blog client I'm using doesn't recognise 'blog' as a word, suggesting instead glob, bog, log, slob,...]
In the first part of the book, Jones explores the doctrine of original sin, rejecting it (in the sense that sin is somehow transmitted by semen) in place of an observation that we each sin for ourselves.
In other words, we don’t only lose our immortality because of Adam’s sin, but each of us stands guilty before God because of his sin.I see the distinction, and yet it seems a bit like splitting hairs. In the understanding I have received, the stress is much more on the "all have sinned" part; saying with the Psalmist "surely I was sinful from birth" rather than seeing this as particularly strongly tied to an inherited sinful state. Perhaps I just blanked the semen bit.
But Jones sees the distinction as crucial to going on to understand the Atonement. As an interlude, he explores his belief that Jesus really rose from being really dead. He finds Jesus' miracles and his resurrection crucial to how these things are to be understood.
The second part explores various ways in which people have understood the Atonement. The central idea for Evangelicals (and some others too) is Penal Substitutionary Atonement. Jones shows a host of reasons for thinking that holding this a central pre-eminent doctrine is a mistake. I'd have to agree there. I've tried to avoid it in preaching and in leading worship, these last several years. It's downright difficult - our patterns of thought, and our hymnology are suffused with it. And yet it's unsatisfactory - particularly as a central idea, even if it makes for a good analogy and an angle to explore from time to time.
Having batted aside this and several other ideas - whilst seeing a measure of merit in most - he ends with a more constructive idea, trying to live up to the title of the book. In this he draws upon Moltmann, but manages to confuse me so that I really cannot summarise or paraphrase what he is saying. This paragraph seems valuable:
Our call is to identify with Christ’s suffering and death, much as he has identified with us. In his death, we are united with his suffering. And in identifying with his resurrection, we are raised to new life.Evidently, I need to learn more about theological methodology. Or perhaps there is no spoon.
