Before I
even get started on this, I have to admit that I want to combine atonement
(article 6) with justification, regeneration and adoption (article 9), but I'm
going to resist. Because of that, this
post will feel at least somewhat unfinished to me, and it might feel that way
to you, as well. I am trying to think of
it in the same way I think of the time and care we should put into the Lenten
season, and particularly Holy Week. If atonement
draws us in to the story of Good Friday, then justification, regeneration, and
adoption point us to Easter. So often, we
want to rush ahead. But it is worthwhile
to sit with the consequences of atonement and to take some time for quiet
reflection rather than moving ahead too quickly. In the Church of the Nazarene, Article 6
reads as follows:
VI.
Atonement
6. We believe that Jesus Christ, by His sufferings, by the shedding of
His own blood, and by His death on the Cross, made a full atonement for all
human sin, and that this Atonement is the only ground of salvation, and that it
is sufficient for every individual of Adam’s race. The Atonement is graciously
efficacious for the salvation of those incapable of moral responsibility and
for the children in innocency but is efficacious for the salvation of those who
reach the age of responsibility only when they repent and believe.
(Isaiah 53:5-6, 11; Mark 10:45; Luke 24:46-48; John 1:29; 3:14-17; Acts
4:10-12; Romans 3:21-26; 4:17-25; 5:6-21; 1 Corinthians 6:20; 2 Corinthians
5:14-21; Galatians 1:3-4; 3:13-14; Colossians 1:19-23; 1 Timothy 2:3-6; Titus
2:11-14; Hebrews 2:9; 9:11-14; 13:12; 1 Peter 1:18- 21; 2:19-25; 1 John 2:1-2)
At its
heart, atonement is about what Jesus did to reconcile God and humanity. There are numerous atonement theories that
focus on different possible explanations for Jesus' crucifixion. Was it a payment? An act of vindication on behalf of God's
honor or justice? A show of
victory? An example of ultimate
obedience? A substitution?
Arminians
lean toward an atonement theory that suggests Christ did not pay the penalty
for our sin but, instead, suffered for us as a substitution for our
suffering. The implication here is that
to pay the penalty would have atoned for all sin, making redemption
unnecessary. By acting as a
substitution, instead, the understanding is that we may choose this reconciliation
but that we should then turn from sin, because we recognize the gravity of it.
Interestingly,
this has me thinking about the different ways in which we exhibit the cross in
various faith traditions. Of particular relevance
might be the tension between a crucifix and an empty cross. The importance of an empty tomb, I can
understand. It's a deal breaker. But I'm fairly certain the cross is never
empty. We don't have any evidence, in
Scripture, of what happened to the cross after Jesus' crucifixion, but in all
likelihood it was not left at Golgotha as a symbol of Jesus' death. In fact, it may have been used for other crucifixions,
before and after that of Jesus. What
makes the cross what it is to us, in the Christian tradition, is that Jesus
hung on it. And yet, we so often worship
before an empty cross. Perhaps there is
something to the crucifix, where Jesus' blood never stops spilling to cover our
sins.
But I have
digressed just a little bit.
Article 6
is significant, because the way we define atonement says a lot about the way we
understand grace... and God.
Regardless
of why or how, we recognize that Jesus did make atonement for sin, reconciling
us to God. I'm not sure why we feel the
need to emphasize that this atonement is for human sin, sufficient for Adam's
race. While I would agree that it
certainly is, I am left feeling a little bit dissatisfied, because I think
atonement covers more than just people. In
I John 2:2, we read, "He is the atoning
sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the
whole world" (NIV). Have we limited
the atonement? Since I believe that God
will redeem everyone and everything that can be redeemed, I would venture to
say that we have. I don't think I want
to do that, and I also don't think this was necessarily an intentional
limitation. We must, however, be careful
with our words.
It's the second sentence that
really gets me, though. There are two
issues that jump out immediately. First,
we recognize atonement as efficacious (effective, successful) for three groups of
people; those incapable of moral responsibility, children in innocency, and
those who repent and believe. I am in
complete agreement that atonement is efficacious for all of those groups. What I struggle with is the earlier article
in which we defined people as continually bent toward sin from birth, but now
we seem to make exceptions. I think we
need to make our language read in such a way that this does not become
confusing to people. Also, perhaps
ironically, we do not define this age of responsibility. I presume this is because we can't.
As long as we recognize that it is not up to us to determine who can't and who won't accept the atonement, I think this part of our statement is
acceptable. Do we recognize that? I
don't know.
The second
issue I have here is that we describe the atonement as graciously efficacious for those who are incapable of moral
responsibility and for children in innocency, but we only describe it as
efficacious for those who repent and believe.
Perhaps this is merely an oversight, but it lends itself to a way of
thinking that indicates that those who accept and believe might be more worthy
of atonement. I would hate to think that
we believe that Jesus owes it to us to bring reconciliation between God and
humanity if we accept it. Speaking for
myself, I am definitely a part of the group who has reached the age of
responsibility, and I would like to admit that atonement is graciously efficacious for me, as
well. I do not deserve it.
L.
