Christianity Theme 2 A, B and C and AO2

Knowledge and understanding of religion and beliefA Religious concepts – the nature of God: Is God male?

The issue of male language about God; the pastoral benefits and challenges of the model of Father;Sallie McFague and God as mother.Can God suffer?The impassibility of God; the modern view of a suffering God illustrated by Jurgen Moltmann (The Crucified God).

B Religious concepts – the Trinity:The need for the doctrine of the Trinity:

the nature and identity of Christ (issues of divinity and pre existence) and Christ’s relationship with the Father (co-equal and co-eternal).

The origin of the Holy Spirit: the filioque controversy.

C Religious concepts – the Atonement:Three theories of the Atonement (which are not mutually exclusive):

the death of Jesus as Christus Victor (with reference to the liberation of humanity from hostile powers);

the death of Jesus as a substitution (both the belief that Jesus died as a substitute for humanity, and the belief that only the divine-human Jesus could act as a sacrifice by God for the sake of humanity);

the death of Jesus as a moral example (of how to live and die).

The underlying assumptions about the need for divine forgiveness and the conflict between the wrath and love of God in theories of the Atonement.

Issues for analysis and evaluation will be drawn from any aspect of the content above, such as:

The validity of referring to God as mother. The theological implications of a suffering God. The monotheistic claims of the doctrine of the Trinity. Whether the doctrine of the Trinity is necessary to understand the God of Christianity. The extent to which the three theories of the Atonement are contradictory. The extent to which the three theories suggest that the Christian God is cruel.

1

A Religious concepts – the nature of God: Is God male?

The Bible consistently refers to God in male terms – God is Father (a term used in both Old and New Testaments), Jesus is male and the Holy Spirit is referred to as ‘he’. God is likened to a human father: he provides for them, disciplines, guides, protects… However, God is a spirit and clearly to be male is linked to physicality - to have male DNA and sex organs! No-one suggests that this is true of God (he is not a giant human!) Therefore, from the outset, terms used of God must be seen to be metaphorical, not literal. (Whilst Jesus of Nazareth was a man, in his pre-existent form as part of the Trinity, ‘he’ was neither male nor female – ‘he’ was spirit.)

God as Father.

In the New Testament, the concept of God as Father combines two separate ideas:

God as Creator of the world – involving a sense of Lordship (John 1:3 implies Jesus was creator as well)

The relationship between God and Jesus – when Jesus referred to God as his Father, he used the intimate term ‘Abba’ best translated ‘Daddy’ – and encouraged his followers to do the same. This emphasised a personal and loving relationship.

However, there are several passages in the Old and New Testaments that portray God in female terms:

Can a mother forget the baby at her breast and have no compassion on the child she has borne? Though she may forget, I will not forget you. (Isaiah 49:15)

As a mother comforts her child, so will I comfort you …(Isaiah 66:13)

Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing.

(Matthew 23:37)

Or suppose a woman has ten silver coins and loses one. Doesn’t she light a lamp, sweep the house and search carefully until she finds it? 9 And when she finds it, she calls her friends and neighbours together and says, “Rejoice with me; I have found my lost coin.” 10 In the same way, I tell you, there is rejoicing in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents.’ (Luke 15:8-10)

Other passages clearly urge caution in our imagery:

God is spirit, and his worshippers must worship in the Spirit and in truth (John 4:24)

So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them (Genesis 1:27)

2

1.Male words used to describe God

2. Female imagery used to describe God

There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:28)

The problem is that the Church has tended to use only male language of God and this has reinforced misconceptions that God is indeed male!

Sally McFague: God as Mother.

Sally McFague is an eco-feminist theologian who wrote ‘Metaphorical Theology: Models of God in Religious Language’, in which she argues that all language about God is metaphorical. No title or name given to God tells us much about his true nature, but rather merely reflects our ideas of him. These metaphors easily turn into idols, leading us to cherish and worship the metaphor rather than God. All metaphors are limited and all become out-dated as culture changes.

Her belief is that metaphors have the power to shape how we view life; thus we need to be careful to choose helpful metaphors according to the times and situations we live in. The example is given of the first scaling of Mount Everest which journalists in the West hailed as ‘the conquest of Everest’ whereas a Taoist from the East wrote of ‘the befriending of Everest’. The tone of this language is so markedly different and reflects and fosters very different attitudes to the environment (to be conquered or respected).

In the same way, metaphors for God can be equally helpful or harmful. Metaphors, she says, are essential for theology but we have forgotten that they are metaphors and retain old ones that don’t work anymore. Metaphors are not true or false. To say ‘God is king’ is not a statement of fact that can proved or disproved. It has become a model while in fact it is a metaphor (Difference between a model and a metaphor…) Metaphors should startle and catch our attention, whilst many have become established models by being ubiquitous, through constant use. It has to be remembered that all religious statements are approximations. McFague sees this approach to be between fundamentalism (where everything is literal, clear and certain) and deconstructionism (in which we bring our interpretation to everything we experience – there is on objective truth). There is only metaphor that can steer a middle path.

Why do we need new metaphors for God?

We need to ask of any metaphor for God ‘Does this help us understand our present situation?’

She argues that we are living:

Where everything is increasingly seen as inter-related. This is true of physics, biology, and psy-chology… terminology across the board in increasingly recognising relationships between things and as well as people. Decision-making is moving away from treating everything as ‘things’

In a nuclear age. We have reached a point in history where we can wipe out birth. We can kill nature. This is a scary world and the threat of nuclear war / disaster is still here.

3

3.What is a metaphor? Why are the used to speak about God?

In an age of worn-out metaphors. She insists that we need anti-hierarchical metaphors today. Nietzche drew attention to this issue, saying:

‘What then is truth? A movable host of metaphors, metonymies, and anthropomorphisms: in short, a sum of human relations which have been poetically and rhetorically intensified, transferred, and embellished, and which, after long usage, seem to a people to be fixed, canonical, and binding. Truths are illusions which we have forgotten are illusions — they are metaphors that have become worn out and have been drained of sensuous force.’

What has been the central metaphor of Christianity?

McFague argues that it has been triumphalist, monarchical and patriarchal. Such metaphors are unhelpful in a world facing disaster and misuses of power over the weak / nature. She says they breed passivity or militarism – a ‘give up or conquer’ mentality. To speak of God as ‘king’ is to insist on submission with God distant and unapproachable.

Her main points are:

There is a problem with the ‘Father’ God. She does not dislike ‘Father’ as such but rejects ‘Almighty Father’ – there are all kinds of models of father, but the adjunct ‘Almighty’ makes this father powerful, patriarchal, judgemental… a figure of authority. Why, she asks, should he not be a father who is playful? (Jesus himself used ‘Abba’ – Daddy – an intimate term for god – and en-couraged his followers to do the same). McFague argues that this patriarchal model is a form of idolatry in the light of Genesis 1:27 in which God is equally and fully expressed in both male and female.

Female is not the same as feminine. The latter is a societal decision. In the Catholic tradition Mary is held up as the model for women – demur, submissive, obedient, a mother… This is a so-cietal stereotype. In contrast, in Hinduism, for example, goddesses have patriarchal / powerful / authoritative attributes. The biblical personification of wisdom ‘Sophia’ in which ‘she’ is linked to justice, has been suppressed in Christianity.

God as mother cares for all life. Self-giving love is best seen in the role of a mother. McFague in-sists that God’s love is for all of creation, not just humans.

Mothering goes beyond creating. The male creator may be likened to an artist (see C. S. Lewis quote in ‘Mere Christianity’) An artist can create a piece of art and not like it, destroy it, put it aside, sell it on… there need be no on-going relationship with that creation – it is done and fin-ished with.

God as a Mother is what is needed in a nuclear age. See above.

4

4. Why does McFague believe Christians should change the metaphors used to speak about God?

McFague argues that it is appropriate to call God Mother, not because God is female, as such, or indeed a mother, but because God’s love mirrors a mother’s love for her children. She then develops this idea, extending the metaphor to speak of the world as God’s body.

She goes on to make a link between three further metaphors for God with three Christian doctrines, ethical elements and types of love.

Metaphor for God Doctrine Ethical element

Type of love

Mother – corresponding to ‘Father’

Creation Justice Agape (selfless love) that God has for the world

Lover – corresponding to ‘Son’

Salvation Healing Eros (desire) – the way God’s love works in the world

Friend – corresponding to ‘Spirit’

Eschatology

Companionship Philia (companionship) – the way humans should interact in the world.

McFague argues that exclusively masculine language used of God that conveys God’s sovereignty, has led to patriarchy – domination of women by men - and abuse of the natural world. The latter can be addressed if God is seen as mother and the world her womb / body. To harm ecology is to harm God. This belief is known as panentheism: the belief that creation is the visible part of God (God being in everything, whilst everything is not God).

Extending the metaphor of God’s maternal nature leads to images of giving birth, nursing, comforting, caring… all of which accentuate humanity’s dependence on God. She acknowledges the limitations of maternal imagery, cautioning that this should not be sentimentalised. Thus the metaphors used should focus on the most basic things mothers do (give birth, feed, protect their young…) rather than things society dictates that women should be (naturally selfless, demur…)

Some see these new metaphors as more accessible to many today and therefore useful, whilst others object on the basis that established terms for God are not only biblical, but promoted by Jesus himself.

5. What new metaphors does McFague believe should be used to speak about God?

6. What problems does she identify with using male metaphors to speak about God?

5

How gender specific language influences the image of God in Christian theology

Most Christians continue to use the traditional version of the Lord’s Prayer in worship and prayer. In recent decades, some churches and congregations have tried to challenge gender specific language by composing their own versions of the Lord’s Prayer that better reflect western society’s more progressive attitudes to gender equality. Look at the versions of the Lord’s Prayer below.

5. In teams of three come up with good arguments for:

1. Viewing God in the traditional way by using male-centric language2. Viewing God in a non-traditional way by using female-centric language3. Viewing God in an entirely gender-neutral way

Gender neutral version

Eternal Spirit,Earth-Maker, Pain-bearer, Life-giverSource of all that is and all that shall be,Father and Mother of us all,Loving God who is in heaven: The hallowing of your name echo through the universe!The way of your justice be followed by people of the world!Your heavenly will be done by all created beings!Your commonwealth of peace and freedom sustain our hope and come on earth. With bread we need for today, feed us.In the hurts we absorb from one another forgive us.In times of temptation and test, strengthen us.From trials too great to endure, spare us.From the grip of all that is evil, free us. For you reign in the glory of the power that is love, now and forever.May it be so. Amen.

Female-centric version

Our Mother, which art the earth, Nurturing are thy ways. Thy web of life be woven Thy way be found within, As it is all around. Thank you this day for our daily bread and sweat and forgive us our misuse of you, as we forgive others their misuse of us. And lead us not into exploitation, But deliver us From lording it over you, And over each other, And over all our other fellow creatures. For thine are the waters of life, The hills, valleys and plains of home, The breeding, seeding, feeding ground, For now, and for as close to forever As we will ever come.

6

Traditional male-centric version

Our Father, which art in heaven,Hallowed be thy Name.Thy Kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.Give us this day our daily bread.And forgive us our trespasses,As we forgive them that trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. For thine is the kingdom, the power, and the glory, For ever and ever. Amen.

Can God suffer?

The traditional Christian view is that God is impassible. This comes from a Latin word meaning ‘unable to suffer’ – its primary meaning – or indeed ‘unable to experience emotion’ – an extension of this word. The assertion is that as God is unable to experience pain or any other human emotion, he has no feeling analogous to human feelings.

Impassibility is linked with God’s immutability – the idea that God is unchanging. This is based on God being perfect – his omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence are complete and without potential – and transcendent – wholly other than anything within creation. God may display a range of emotions (love, grief, compassion, anger) but these do not mean that he has changed, rather they are expressions of his unchanging love and justice.

The claim that Jesus is God incarnate ‘made God’, in human form, passible without compromising his impassiblity in his divine nature. Becoming human allowed him to experience emotions such as grief, joy and pain and to overcome suffering through death followed by resurrection.

This traditional view has been challenged in response to two world wars, the Jewish holocaust and on-going conflicts and atrocities. These theologians argue that it is unacceptable to believe in a God that is immune from suffering and that instead God must be passible - must undergo emotional change and suffer.

6. Write up definitions of impassible and immutable

Jurgen Moltmann – The crucified God (1972).

Moltmann was an influential German theologian who is famous for his theology of hope, arguing that God suffers with humanity and that humanity is promised a better future based on resurrection.

He argued that whilst the Cross was the central symbol of the Church, the Church was in crisis over what its role truly was. The Church was in tension between maintaining a distinctiveness from the world in its identity and connectedness to it and hence relevance. Concentrating on being distinctive can mean losing connection with the world and ceasing to be relevant. Conversely, seeking to be integrated and relevant, can mean loss of distinctiveness.

The answer to this was, he argued to focus on the significance of the cross. Christ was crucified. This is more shocking than we have truly realised. This is not the sort of thing one would expect to find in a religion - suffering and death as the central motif. He says the Gospels are in fact effectively Passion narratives with extended introductions. This cannot be overstated in terms of how unlikely this would be as a choice of emphasis. Crucifixion was a sign of scandal.

7. Problem

8. Solution

7

How is this different from other theologies?

Human / philosophical labels for God as ruler / principle / moral force are not, he insists, the Christian God. These make God irrelevant to a suffering world, reducing him to a closed circle. If atheists reject these images, Christians should be on the side on atheists! (Rob Bell echoed something of this in recent years, saying that he often says to atheists: ‘Tell me which God you don’t believe in – because I probably won’t either’)

Moltmann attempts to answer Jesus’ cry from the cross ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’ and concludes that God experienced death on the cross, making this event of great importance not just for all mankind, but for God himself.

He also explores what the cross means for today. He argues that the theology of the cross is the reverse side of the theology of hope based on the resurrection and that the power of that hope cannot exist without recognising the negativity of pain.

Christians are called to identify with the crucified Christ as God identified himself on the cross with those abandoned by God. Moltmann uses the example of a young Jewish boy hanged by the Nazis in Auschwitz. He argues that God hung with him on the gallows, because God suffers alongside those who suffer. This identification with the abandoned means that Christians need to express solidarity with the poor, oppressed, alienated. Agape love embraces the ‘different, alien and ugly’. (See extract below).

The Church has stripped the cross of its true meaning, by over-emphasising the sacrifice of Jesus detracts from its even greater meaning. It has lost the understanding there was in the Middle Ages, when the poor saw it in a mystical light, in which God was recognised in the suffering Christ, which then led as a drive to liberate the oppressed. He argues that the Church has to move from the concept of the crucifixion being a purely private and spiritualised matter, to a political theology.

Jesus’ cry from the cross reflects that his experience of abandonment is something which takes place in God himself: ‘The cross of the Son divided God from God to the utmost degree of enmity and distinction. The resurrection of the Son abandoned by God unites God with God in the most intimate fellowship’. ‘In the cross, Father and Son are most deeply separated in the forsakenness and at the same time are most inwardly one in their surrender’

Moltmann proceeds to ask what this meant for God himself. He argues that because Jesus was God, God is never greater than we see him in this humiliation, nor more glorious in his self-surrender, no more powerful than in this helplessness nor more divine than in this humanity.

He asserts that ‘protest atheism’ (which argues that evil and suffering destroy belief in a benevolent God) is resolved in the cross, when we recognise that God himself protested against suffering in the death of the godforsaken Son.

For this reason, he rejects Docetism – an early heresy that only the human part of Jesus’s nature suffered, while his divine nature was unaffected.

9. Summarise Moltmann’s ideas about the suffering God.

8

What does it mean to commit to the crucified God?

This means that Christians are called to accept a lack of success, to be open to hatred, failure and suffering. They are called to be active in this world. It is not about trying to emulate Christ’s suffering (in some kind of mystical identification sense where suffering is to be sought to make us like Christ) but all should be involved in political causes on behalf of the poor and oppressed. Where such people suffer for it, it will be understood as part of the faith experience.

The emphasis, for Moltmann, then, is not spirituality (passivity) but involvement.

In 1989 the 6 priests in El Salvador were martyred (with their housekeeper and her daughter). A copy of Moltmann’s ‘The Crucified God’ fell into the blood of one of the priests that had been flung against a book shelf. For Moltmann who was made aware of this, these priests were living out the beliefs he had expressed in his book.

A God who suffers? Nazi Death Camp Prisoner

10. What does Eli Wiesel mean when he says that God is hanging on the gallows? Why could this story tie in with Moltmann’s views?

Almost 50 years ago Elie Wiesel was a fifteen-year old prisoner in the Nazi death camp at Buna. A cache of arms belonging to a Dutchman had been discovered at the camp. The man was promptly shipped to Auschwitz. But he had a young servant boy, a pipel as they were called, a child with a refined and beautiful face, unheard of in the camps. He had the face of a sad angel. The little servant, like his Dutch master, was cruelly tortured, but would not reveal any information. So the SS sentenced the child to death, along with two other prisoners who had been discovered with arms. Wiesel tells the story:

One day when we came back from work, we saw three gallows rearing up in the assembly place, three black crows. Roll call. SS all around us; machine guns trained: the traditional ceremony. Three victims in chains—and one of them, the little servant, the sad-eyed angel. The SS seemed more preoccupied, more disturbed than usual. To hang a young boy in front of thousands of spectators was no light matter. The head of the camp read the verdict. All eyes were on the child. He was lividly pale, almost calm, biting his lips. The gallows threw its shadow over him. This time the Lagercapo refused to act as executioner. Three SS replaced him. The three victims mounted together onto the chairs. The three necks were placed at the same moment within the nooses. “Long live liberty!” cried the two adults. But the child was silent.

“Where is God? Where is He?” someone behind me asked. Total silence throughout the camp. On the horizon, the sun was setting. “Bare your heads!” yelled the head of the camp. His voice was raucous. We were weeping. “Cover your heads!” Then the march past began. The two adults were no longer alive. Their tongues hung swollen, blue-tinged. but the third rope was still moving; being so light, the child was still alive...For more than half an hour he stayed there, struggling between life and death, dying in slow agony under our eyes. And we had to look him full in the face. He was still alive when I passed in front of him. His tongue was still red, his eyes were not yet glazed. Behind me, I heard the same man asking: “Where is God now?” And I heard a voice within me answer him: “Where is He? Here He is—He is hanging here on this gallows.” That night the soup tasted like corpses.Elie Wiesel, Night, Bantam, 1982, pp. 75-6, quoted in When God Was Taken Captive, W. Aldrich, Multnomah, 1989, pp. 39-41.

9

AO2 Essay plans 11 ‘It is valid to refer to God as ‘Mother’. Evaluate this view

Introduction

It is valid It is not validThe Bible uses female images of God The Bible uses more male images of God

The Bible was written by men for men

Sallie McFague

10

11

12 ‘The God cannot suffer.’ Evaluate this view.

Cannot suffer Can sufferTo claim God suffers makes Him part of the natural world

The Old Testament refers to a God who responds to events on earth

Moltmann

In conclusion,

12

13

B The Trinity

The need for the doctrine of the Trinity: the nature and identity of Christ (issues of divinity and pre-existence) and Christ’s relationship with the Father (co-equal and co-eternal).

Christianity grew out of Judaism, embracing its Holy Scriptures as ‘The Old Testament’. There it proclaims in what Jews refer to as the Shema ‘Hear O Israel, the Lord your God, the Lord is One’ (Deuteronomy 6: 4-5). The New Testament records Jesus endorsing those very words and Paul declares that ‘There is no God but one’ (1 Corinthians 8: 4). However, whilst Christianity is strictly monotheistic it has the unique doctrine of the Trinity. What is it? Where did it come from? How is it to be understood?

‘One theme that many people miss when studying the Trinity is the experiential dimension. Belief in the Trinity did not arise primarily from philosophical discussions in the Christian church – or from a desire to formulate doctrines – though both philosophical and doctrinal discussion have always been a part of Christianity. Belief in the Trinity arose from Christian experience. Early Christians had a set of experiences that required them to redefine their Jewish belief in monotheism.

Stephen Bullivant boils down Christian convictions about God to three basic statements

1. There is only one God (Heresy: three Gods [tri-theism])2. The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit is each God (Heresy: one of these is not fully God

[Arianism])3. The Father the Son and the Holy Spirit are not the same. [Heresy: these are the same [Modalism])What Christians did not have, for many centuries, was an agreed-upon way to say all three statements at once. The emergence of three sets of beliefs (later branded as heresies) helped Christians to arrive at an agreed way to do this.’ Greg Barker

14. Fill in the missing words: Sustainer, Redeemer, Creator, Trinity,

Christianity is a monotheistic religion – this means ______________________________

For most Christians, the Christian God exists in three persons – Father (_________), Son (____________) and Holy Spirit (_____________). The doctrine the ____________was necessary to define the relationship between these three Persons.

15. What three things does the doctrine of the Trinity assert? Equal, doctrine, Persons,

a. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three distinct __________

b. Each Person is fully God; the three are coexistence, coeternal and co________

c. There is only one God; the __________ does not split God into three parts.

14

16. A brief history of the Trinity.

Tertullian in the 3rd century first used the term ‘Trinity’. It was formalised in the Nicene Creed

(325CE), it stated the Son was ‘of one substance’ with the Father.

17. Find the original Nicene Creed on the internet, print and read it

The Modern Nicene Creed

WE BELIEVE in one God,the Father, the Almighty,maker of heaven and earth,of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,the only Son of God,eternally begotten of the Father,God from God, Light from Light,true God from true God,begotten, not made,of one Being with the Father.Through him all things were made.

For us and for our salvationhe came down from heaven:by the power of the Holy Spirithe became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,and was made man.

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;he suffered death and was buried.On the third day he rose againin accordance with the Scriptures;he ascended into heavenand is seated at the right hand of the Father.

He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,who proceeds from the Father and the Son.With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.He has spoken through the Prophets.We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.We look for the resurrection of the dead,and the life of the world to come. Amen.

15

The three heresies the Nicene Creed of

325 was designed to counteracted

Adoptionism -the belief that Jesus was entirely human, who became the Son of God only at his baptism when the Spirit fell upon him.

Sabellianism - the belief that Jesus was entirely divine and not truly human (Problems arise regarding suffering and death).

Arianism - In this model, Jesus is God because God confers authority on him. He is subordinate to the Father. He is begotten of the Father – not eternally one with God and they each have different essences. Constantine called a conference to work out these different understandings and eventually the council rejected Arias’s model. This led to the phrase ‘Begotten not made, of one substance…’) Jesus had to be fully God if he was to save us.

Modalism - The idea of one person who takes on three modes. However, this denies differences between persons of the Trinity (it doesn’t make sense to say that it is the Father who is crucified, Jesus prays to the Father…)

18. Research the Athanasian Creed.

19. Biblical foundations of the doctrine of the Trinity

God the Father Jesus as God The Holy Spirit as God

Genesis 1 (and elsewhere) uses the title Elohim, for God – the plural of El (God)

Genesis 1:27 God says ‘Let us make man in our image’

Abraham is visited by three mysterious men who deliver God’s message to him

Proverbs 8 speaks of Wisdom, which is personified, with God in the act of Creation

Isaiah 9: 6 foretells the birth of the Messiah who will be called ‘Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace’

The prologue to John’s Gospel claims that Jesus was the Word, that he was with God and was God and created all things

In Philippians 2:10, Paul writes that Jesus was God but ‘emptied himself’ to be human

John 20:28 has Thomas proclaim to the risen Christ ‘My Lord and my God’

John 14: 23 links the indwelling of the Holy Spirit to the indwelling of Jesus and his Father

Matthew 28 has the Great Commission, in which Jesus sends his disciples into the world to baptise all nations ‘in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit’

Significantly, at Jesus’s baptism all three persons are noted – God speaks from heaven saying ‘This is my beloved Son…’ and the Spirit descends on him like a dove.

The Bible teaches that God is one.

In the Old Testament. Deuteronomy 6:4-5 states unequivocally that God is one.

In the New Testament, the statement is supported by Jesus in Mark 12:29 ‘the Lord our God, the Lord is

one’.

20. Explain and summarise the biblical evidence to support the doctrine of the Trinity and use this

as evidence and examples in an answer. E.g.

21. Explain why the Christian Church regards the Trinity as a mystery.

‘The mystery of the Most Holy Trinity is the central mystery of Christian faith and life. It is the

mystery of God in himself’. (The Roman Catholic Catechism)

16

The origin of the Holy Spirit: The Filioque Controversy

The filioque clause or more appropriately the filioque controversy has to do with the Latin phrase, translated "and the son", which was accepted as an addition to the Nicene Creed by the Western churches and subsequently opposed by the Eastern churches:

The Nicene Creed (325 CE) simply states ‘We believe in the Holy Spirit’– there is no elaboration and all the churches represented at the Council of Nicea had agreed to the new wording.

At the later Council of Constantinople (381 CE), these words were amended by adding ‘We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father’.

It was then changed again at the Council of Toledo (589 CE) by adding three further words to the end of the phrase, making it read ‘who proceeds from the Father and the Son’. These three words in English are a translation of one Latin word – filioque. The inclusion of this one word caused such controversy that it changed Church history and has divided Christians ever since!

22.What does filioque mean?

The Filioque Controversy concerned the origin of the Holy Spirit and the nature of his relationship with the other Persons of the Trinity. Did he emanate from God the Father or God the Father and God the Son?

The word was added due to the influence of significant Church theologians such as Augustine of Hippo and Cyril of Alexandria who had interpreted the relational aspect of the Trinity in this new way. The Latin speaking churches of the West had widely adopted this terminology, whilst the Greek speaking churches of the East had not. The word was added without the agreement of Five Patriarchs of these eastern churches.

For six centuries church leaders argued as to whether the addition should be used – i.e. whether it was doctrinally sound or not. Rome accused the Eastern Church of heresy due to their rejection of ‘filioque’ and this compounded other areas of disagreement, leading to the Great Schism in 1054 CE. (This was the separation of churches between East and West, with the latter being led by successive Popes in Rome and the former by Patriarchs which still exists today. Hence Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Syrian Orthodox etc. as opposed to Roman Catholic)

This understanding of God’s nature did not arise from philosophical discussion but from Christian experience. Augustine (5th Century) influenced the Western Church, arguing that Christians can know the Trinity through their experience as there are traces of the Trinity in the soul. He speaks of a triad of self-knowledge incorporating memory, understanding and will.

The idea of the Spirit proceeding from both the Father and the Son came from his belief that the Holy Spirit acted within the Trinity as a bond of love between Father and Son. Additionally, he acted within humans to unite them in a bond of love with Father, Son and one another. Thus he claimed that Christians could experience the true Trinitarian nature of God for themselves.

The Eastern Church found it unacceptable to base a doctrine on personal experience, making the nature of God dependent upon created beings. It was also wrong to confuse the incomprehensible structure of

17

the Trinity with its actions (mixing immanent and economic models of Trinity). Consequently, it accepts the structure of the Trinity as three equal Persons, but does not believe that we can know anything of the inner being of God other than that:

The Father alone is the source of divinity

The Son alone is ‘begotten’ of the Father

The Spirit ’proceeds’ from the Father.

23. Amendments to the Nicene Creed, which stated . . . .

Council of Constantinople 381 CECouncil of Christian bishops called by the Roman Emperor. This second ecumenical council was an effort to get agreement in the church through an assembly representing all of Christendom.

Council of Toledo 589 CE

Group 1 – prepare a one minute speech in favour of filioque

Group 2 – prepare a one minute speech against filioque

24. What is the filioque controversy and why is it still going on today?

18

The Nicene Creed was amended Another change to the Nicene Creed

Credo in Spiritum Sanctum qui ex patre filioque procedit ("I believe in the Holy Spirit who proceeds from the Father and Son")

The Immanent Trinity and the Economic Trinity – use the PPP

Immanent Trinity . . . refers to what God is – three Persons, one God.

Economic Trinity . . . refers to what God does –Father creates, Son redeems, Spirit sustains / sanctifies (makes holy)

25. Explain the Western Churches attitude to the Trinity – add scholars and examples

The Western Church accepted Augustine’s argument that human beings can know the Trinity from their own experience as there are traces of the Trinity in the human soul (the triad of self-knowledge: memory, understanding and will). Augustine did not differentiate between the Immanent and Economic Trinity.The Holy Spirit acts within the trinity and there is a bond of love between the Father and the Son, it follows that the Holy Spirit must proceed from both.

26. Explain the Eastern Churches attitude to the Trinity –include structure and actions

The Eastern Church found it unacceptable to base a doctrine on personal experience, making the nature of God dependent upon created beings. It was also wrong to confuse the incomprehensible structure of the Trinity with its actions (mixing immanent and economic models of Trinity). Consequently, it accepts the structure of the Trinity as three equal Persons, but does not believe that we can know anything of the inner being of God other than that:

The Father alone is the source of divinity

The Son alone is ‘begotten’ of the Father

The Spirit ’proceeds’ from the Father.

19

Modern developments of the Trinity – including Enlightenment, Schleiermacher and Barth

After so much heated debate over the first ten centuries of Christianity, this doctrine fell from being a matter of central concern. Theologians following the Enlightenment (the 18th Century cultural shift to knowledge having to be based on reason and empiricism etc.) found the doctrine difficult to defend. The father of liberal theology, Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834) dismissed the notion entirely. Then, in the 20th Century, the highly influential Swiss theologian Karl Barth, produced his response to Schleiermacher insisting on the doctrine’s importance, stating that the Trinity ‘is what basically distinguishes the Christian doctrine of God as Christian.’ For him, this doctrine rests on the basis that God has revealed himself to humanity and that he has done this in two movements:

(i) In the Son: this is an objective ‘unveiling’ of what God is [factual]

(ii) In the Spirit: this is a subjective reception or ‘imparting’ – ‘God working for us’ [personal belief]

The objective unveiling of God in Jesus is not sufficient in itself, but requires a subjective recognition, imparted by the Holy Spirit. To illustrate what he meant, he imagined the discussion between two men witnessing Jesus’s crucifixion:

The first says, ‘There is a common criminal being executed’. This man has failed to recognise the unveiling of God in Jesus.

The second man says, ‘There is the Son of God dying for me’. To this man, the Holy Spirit has imparted the recognition of God in Jesus.

Barth concludes that humans are incapable of responding to the objective revelation of God in Jesus without the work of the Holy Spirit. The imparting of this knowledge proceeds from both the hidden Father and the revealed Son. In other words, Barth endorses the inclusion of the word filioque. This revelation is the result of God’s grace (good favour / undeserved kindness) and this grace is not only seen in this act but in the very nature of God himself, or as he puts it a true ‘mode of being’. Thus, the Immanent Trinity (who God is) is reflected in the Economic Trinity (what God does), allowing the two to coexist and be inter-related.

Problems with modern developments of Trinity.

Barth’s model has been criticised on a number of grounds.

The Eastern Church views the merging of Immanent and Economic Trinity models and endorsement of filioque as heresy.

Jurgen Moltmann and others have been suspicious of Barth’s use of the term Seinsweise - ‘mode of being’ as opposed to ‘Person’ to refer to the members of the Godhead. It smacked of an early heresy known as Modalism which taught that God was a single person who revealed himself in three different modes at different times: Father (before the incarnation) Son (in Jesus) and Holy Spirit (after Christ’s ascension).

His model does not distinguish between the three persons

It is seen as destroying the unity of the Godhead as it has Father, Son and Holy Spirit existing one after the other in eternal repetition, but never at the same time.

20

These have been defended in the following ways:

The Western Church has endorsed this view of the Trinity – it is not heresy!

Barth’s avoidance of ‘Persons’ and adoption of Seinsweise - ‘modes of being’ is deliberate to ensure that there is no confusion between ‘Person’ and ‘personality’. He insists that God is one personality in three modes. Whilst speaking of ‘one God in threefold repetition’ he also insists that ‘He is the one God in each repetition’, highlighting the unchanging nature of the one eternal Trinity.

Barth distinguishes the Father from the Son by referring to the Son before the incarnation as Logos asarkos – ‘The Word without flesh’. The Son is distinctive in being Son of God and then Son of Man (Jesus). The Holy Spirit is distinctive in bearing witness to the Son.

Barth argues that God is ‘unimpaired unity’ as well as ‘unimpaired distinction’ as Revealer (Father), Revelation (Son) and Revealedness (Holy Spirit).

You will not be required to rehearse all of these arguments and counter-arguments. Choose 2 from each side to highlight and learn. Bear in mind that the Specification requires you to be able to write about the nature and identity of Christ (issues of divinity and pre-existence), his relationship with the Father (coequal and coeternal) and the origin of the Holy Spirit (the filioque controversy).

21

27. Read the summary of Barth and problems with the modern developments of the Trinity. You will not be able to cover them all in an answer, so select three or four that you would use to write about the Trinity bearing in mind the three elements of the Specification: ‘nature and identity of Christ’; ‘relationship with the Father’; and , ‘the origin of the Holy Spirit’.

Barth’s modern development of the Trinity

Problems with Barth’s model of the Trinity

Answers to the problems

22

23

28.‘The concept of the Trinity is monotheistic’. Evaluate this view. 30 marks.

Read page 23 and write a five minute essay plan – what are the key arguments? Link to the question and add a conclusion.

Introduction – outline the argument – 3 in 1 is logical nonsense, even Christians claim it is a mystery!

Paragraph 1 – Not monotheistic – like Hinduism or Paganism

Paragraph 2 – Father and Son are separate (Arianism)

Paragraph 3 – Christianity is monotheistic – analogies – Augustine and Welsh theologian

Paragraph 4 – Trinity about relationship

Conclusion – refer to the question and answer it!

24

25

29. ‘The doctrine of the Trinity is necessary to understand the God of Christianity.’ ETV

Or ‘The doctrine of the Trinity is unbiblical’. Evaluate this view. 30 marks

Analyse the sample answer. Use it and the rest of this booklet as basis to write a perfect answer!

The doctrine of the Trinity is necessary The doctrine of the Trinity is not necessary

26

C Atonement

Guidance from Eduqas

‘For Christians the atonement is the means by which God purifies individual Christians of sin and reconciles the world to himself. The instrument of the Atonement is the death of Jesus on the cross. Candidates may find the following passages helpful - Colossians 1:20, 1 John 2:2 and Revelation 7:14’

Colossians 1:20New International Version (NIV)

20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

1 John 2:2New International Version (NIV)

2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

Revelation 7:14 New International Version (NIV)

14 I answered, “Sir, you know.”

And he said, “These are they who have come out of the great tribulation; they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.What is atonement?

Atonement is the process by which men and women are reconciled with God through the death of Jesus on the cross. God and humanity need to be reconciled. In Genesis 3 Adam and Eve are successfully tempted by the devil and introduce sin into the world. Christianity teaches that all humans carry this ’original sin’ within them. This separates them from God and therefore reconciliation is required.

The origin of the term ‘atonement’

The word ‘atonement’ has been used in the English language since the 16th century to convey the significance of Jesus’ death. It was coined from the two words ‘at one’ by William Tyndale (1494-1536), one of the first translators of the Bible into English. ‘At-one-ment’ simply means ‘to set at one’ or ‘to reconcile’. Older English versions of the Bible tend to use this word whereas more modern versions use the word ‘reconciliation’.

Models of Atonement

There is no single doctrine of atonement, nor does the Christian Church have a single definition of what Jesus’ death really meant. However, there are three key models of atonement that are used to convey how Jesus reconciled humankind to himself through Jesus’ death on the cross. These are not mutually exclusive!

Most of them make use of two technical terms;

Expiation: ‘Removing guilt by paying a penalty’. This is what Christ did on the cross – he paid the penalty for human sin.

Propitiation: ‘Turning away wrath by making an offering’. This is the result of what Christ did on the cross – he averted God’s wrath.

27

The three main models (sometimes referred to as theories/images) of atonement are;

1. Sacrifice2. Penal Substitution 3. Moral Example

There are also variant models within these. The Sacrifice model has a variant Ransom model which was further developed by Gustaf Aulén into the Christus Victor model. The Penal Substitution model is a development of an earlier Satisfaction model.

1. SACRIFICE/Ransom/Christus Victor

The sacrificial model: In the Old Testament sacrifice was a common practice aimed at restoring the relationship between people and God. Leviticus16: 20-22 describes a process by which the priest symbolically lays the sins of the community upon a goat which is then cast out into the wilderness. In Exodus 12: 24-7 the Jews are commanded to slaughter and eat a lamb on the first night of the feast of Passover to remember their deliverance from Egypt. Therefore, when John the Baptist said Jesus was ‘the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world’ (John 1: 29), the idea would have been familiar to his listeners. The Epistle to the Hebrews is the most extensive New Testament treatment of Jesus death as a sacrifice. It states that through the perfect sacrifice of Jesus, human sin was taken away ‘once for all’ (Hebrews 7:27). Jesus’ death on the cross was therefore a final expiation, a final atonement for sin.

Early Christian theologians took up this image. They proposed that human beings had nothing of sufficient value to sacrifice to God for their sins and so God had provided the sacrifice for them. Augustine wrote in ‘The City of God’ about 420 CE: ‘(Jesus) offered sacrifice for our sins. And where did he find that offering, the pure victim that he would offer?’ He offered himself’.

Issue: No loving God would offer his only Son as a sacrifice in order to satisfy his own sense of justice. Such a God would be an angry tyrant who must be appeased before he forgives.

The Ransom Model: A variant of the sacrificial model of atonement is the Ransom model. The Gospels indicate that Jesus saw his death in terms of a ransom payment to redeem men and women from sin. Matthew 20:28 quotes him as saying that ‘the Son of Man came…to give his life a ransom for many’. This idea is repeated in 1 Timothy 2:5-6 when Paul speaks of ‘Jesus…who gave himself a ransom for all’. It is not clear to whom the ransom is paid. Origen, a 2nd century theologian, maintained that Jesus’ death was a ransom payment to Satan to free humankind. As Satan was unaware that Jesus was God, he was deceived. He then suffered a final defeat when Jesus was resurrected.

Issue: This model gives Satan more power than he has and makes God a debtor and a deceiver.

Christus Victor

In 1931, the Swedish theologian Gustaf Aulén repopularised the ransom model in his book ‘Christus Victor’. He argued that human beings had indeed been bound by the hostile powers of death and the devil. However, he suggested that the ransom model was not a theological hypothesis but a passion story about God conquering these powers and liberating his people from the bondage of sin and death. Therefore, whereas Anselm saw the atonement as the payment of a debt of honour to God, Aulén sees it in terms of human beings being liberated from the slavery of sin, of Jesus by his incarnation entering human misery and redeeming it. Issue: This model plays down human sin and is triumphalist.

28

2. The Cross as Satisfaction and PENAL SUBSTITUTION

Satisfaction: The word ‘satisfaction’ here does not mean ‘pleasure’ or ‘fulfilment’ but ‘reparation’, ‘recompense’, ‘propitiation’. Anselm (Archbishop of Canterbury from 1093-1109) proposed the Satisfaction model of the atonement in his book ‘Cur Deus Homo (1097). It was a modification of the Ransom model and suggested that human sin had so offended God’s honour that he could only be satisfied by the death of the God-man, Jesus. Anselm believed the human debt to God was greater than men and women were able to pay. This meant that God has to pay the debt himself. However, the debt would not redeem human beings unless it was made by a human. God therefore became human in Jesus so that he could pay the debt to himself. Jesus was under no obligation to die but his death brought infinite honour to God and gained Jesus a ‘supererogation’ of merit (he did more than duty required). The reward (reconciliation with God) was not needed by Jesus as he was sinless but it was passed on to those who believed in him.

Issue: This model is based on the concept of ‘honour’, a central concept of the feudal system of Anselm’s day, in which serfs were bound to an overlord who in turn was bound to the King. Serfs owed their overlord a debt of honour for protecting them as did the overlord to the King. Anselm saw God in these terms – an overlord of the world. Therefore, this model is unbiblical.

Penal substitution: 16th Century Protestant reformers saw Anselm’s Satisfaction model as inadequate as it was based on the concept of God’s honour rather than the concept of God’s justice. They proposed an alternative Penal Substitution model: that Jesus set humans free from being punished for their sins by taking that punishment upon himself on the cross, thus satisfying the justice of God. They based their arguments on the Suffering Servant Songs of the Old Testament book of Isaiah where there are famous examples of vicarious suffering; for example ‘the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all’ (Isaiah 53: 6) and some passages in Paul’s Epistles; for example, ‘Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us’ (Galatians 3:13).

Issues

This model is based more on a criminal justice system than on biblical revelation. No criminal justice system would justify punishing the innocent rather than the guilty. The Penal Substitution model simply replaced Anselm’s concept of God’s offended honour with

the concept of God’s offended justice. It portrays God as vengeful who perpetrates ‘a form of cosmic child abuse’ against his Son. God is seen as a God of retribution rather than love.

It separates the Father and the Son. It is as if the Son saves us from the Father. Theologian Jeffrey John argued against this model saying ‘it made God sound like a psychopath’. It is incompatible with any proper Christian understanding of the nature of God.

Others have argued that the Penal Substitution model is the mechanism by which everything else is achieved by Jesus on the Cross:

The Cross as ransom: This model only works only if Jesus took our punishment. The Cross as moral example (see below): this model demands that we identify with Jesus’ self-

sacrifice, but we can only identify with him because he first identified with us in our sin by taking our punishment.

29

The cross as victory (Christus Victor): we can share Jesus’ victory and be liberated only if we are united with him. We cannot be united with him unless our sins are forgiven. Our sins are forgiven because Jesus has taken our punishment for us as our substitute.

3. The Cross as MORAL EXAMPLE

Another model of atonement first formulated by Augustine and restated by Peter Abelard at the beginning of the 12th century in reaction against Anselm’s Satisfaction theory is the Moral Example model. It is favoured by modern liberal theologians. This model proposes that Jesus didn’t die to appease or placate God but to show human beings the depth of God’s love for them. The purpose was to lead people to repentance. The atonement isn’t aimed at appeasing God’s honour or justice but at the moral improvement of humankind. Atonement is achieved as we follow his example.

Issues:

It doesn’t explain the crucifixion. Jesus didn’t need to die to provide a moral example. He could have done this through his life and teachings.

It teaches that humans can achieve salvation through their own efforts. It teaches salvation through works, not faith and denies the supernatural effect of Jesus’ death. Jesus didn’t really have to be God!

It belittles God’s anger against sin.

30

Christus Victor Christ as substitute A moral exampleBible verse

Having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross. (Colossians 3:15)

We are like straying sheep but God laid on his son the sin of all of us (Isaiah 53:6)Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us. (Galatians 3:13

Greater love has no-one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. (John 15:13)

Key idea The role of the devil is important in this theory, and how it is linked to early Christian beliefs about Jesus' dissent into Hell prior tothe Resurrection.

Ransom model

Gustaf Aulen – atonement is human beings being liberated from the slavery of sin, of Jesus by his incarnation entering human misery and redeeming it.

The key idea is that Jesus died as a substitute for others, instead of them. In some way, through his death, Jesus absorbedthe penalty of sin and made it possible for human beings to be at one with God.

The cross as Satisfaction Anselm – Human sin had offended God’s honourHe could only be satisfied by the death of the God-man, Jesus.

Penal Substitution – 16th Century Protestant reformers – Jesus set humans free from punishment by taking the punishment himself on the cross, satisfying God’s justice.

Isaiah –

This model helps us understand

In this model, reconciliation and purification are achieved by an inward and loving acceptance of the sacrifice made by Christ on the cross. Here Jesus functions as a moral example to follow.

Augustine and Abelard‘Our redemption through the suffering Christ . . . secures for us the true liberty of the children of God, in order that we might do all things out of love rather than out of fear – love for him that has shown us such grace.’ AbelardJesus died to show the depth of God’s love for humanity – not to appease or placate God.Purpose -

Key picture The defeat of Nazism by the

31

allied forces.

Evaluation Challenges1. Plays down human

sin and guilt2. Too triumphalist

Defence1. Similar to Irenaeus’

Recapitulation model

‘Through a tree we were made debtors to God; so through a tree we have our debt cancelled’ Irenaeaus

ChallengesSatisfaction modelAnselm’s model is based on the feudal system (serf, Lord and King) and not biblical teachings

Penal substitution1. Based on criminal

justice system not bible

2. No criminal justice system would punish innocent

3. Based on violence – God’s insists his Son suffers

4. Separates Father and Son

5. Not Christian idea about God’s nature

DefenceSupported by New Testament teachings- necessity of faith for salvation

Challenges1.

2.

3.

DefenceIt has a long history (Augustine in the 3rd century)Supported by New Testament teachings e.g.

32

33

Christus Victor Christ as substitute A moral example

(a) Explain two theories of the Atonement that you have studied. [AO1 30]Candidates could include some or all of the following, but other relevant points should be credited.Note that only two of the following theories should be covered in the candidate’s answer.

All theories of the atonement aim to explain how humans can be reconciled to God through the death of Jesus. Answers may unpack the concept with reference to the centrality of Jesus’ death in Christian understandings of his role as saviour from sin, bringing forgiveness of sins and restoring a right relationship with God.

The death of Jesus as Christus Victor:- This theory suggests that Jesus’ death and resurrection defeated the powers of evil, liberating humanity from hostile powers.- Those hostile powers can be understood in a number of ways: the devil, sin, the law, death, etc. (or a combination thereof).- Some modern liberal Christians understand this as a subversion of worldly powers, and view the resurrection as a triumph over them.

The death of Jesus as a substitution:- This covers two related beliefs: (a) that Jesus died in place of the people to free humanity from sin – God put the sins of humanity onto the sinless Jesus, who took the punishment that humanity deserved(penal substitution theory); and (b) that, since the debt of sin is owed to the divine (God) by the people (human), only Jesus (both divine and human) could act as sacrifice by God for the sake of humanity.- The penal substitution theory emphasises God’s justice – God has to uphold God’s laws and teachings, which means that justice must be served, and sin must be punished.- However, some argue that substitution theories also emphasise God’s love for humans: rather than punish people for their sin, God gave God’s self in the form of Jesus.

The death of Jesus as a moral example:- This theory (also called the “moral influence theory” or “moral exemplar theory”) suggests that the life and works of Jesus were given to humanity as a moral example of how to live and die.- This moral example inspires humans to overcome sin in their lives and grow closer to God.- The focus in this theory is wider than just the death of Jesus (especially when compared to other theories of the atonement), as it also entails Jesus’ teachings, the movement founded in his name, and God’s redemptive love in Jesus. Jesus’ death is understood as a martyrdom because of these teachings.

This is not a checklist, please remember to credit any valid alternatives.

Write two AO1 essay plans Explain Christian theories about atonement

Examine the objection made to the main models of atonemen

Analysis: The extent to which the three models of the atonement are contradictory.34

The three models propose different means of salvation and some have suggested these are contradictory and incoherent.

The Moral Example model teaches that salvation can be achieved by personal moral effort/works. Supporters claim this is the original basis for any atonement model as it was taught in the 3rd century CE whereas the Penal Substitution model didn’t appear until the 16th century. Therefore, whilst they don’t see any inconsistency, there is a sense of priority in understanding. The Moral Example model is also supported by New Testament teaching on the need for repentance which, supporters argue, is the basis of the Christian faith. Hence, this theory is favoured by Liberal Christians.

However, the Sacrificial and Penal Substitution theories teach that salvation can only be achieved by the death of Christ and faith in him. Supporters argue that this is supported by New Testament teaching on the necessity of faith for salvation and that, although the Penal Substitution model wasn’t formally proposed until the 16th century it does have its origins in the New Testament. The Sacrificial model is much earlier with roots in the Old Testament. It tends to be favoured by Conservative Christians.

However, in ‘The Cross of Christ’ (1986) the evangelical theologian John R.W. Stott proposed that the Moral Example model can actually be seen as part of the Penal Substitution model meaning the two could be harmonised. The Penal Substitution model focusses entirely on the death of Jesus whereas the Moral Example model sees Jesus’ death in the wider context of his ethical teaching. Jesus was sentenced to die because of what he taught. This means the two models are interconnected within the larger story of Jesus’ incarnation, crucifixion and resurrection.

However, it could be claimed that the Moral Example model clashes with Paul’s rejection of salvation through works. This could be resolved, however, if we accept that Paul was referring to Jewish ritual ‘works’ such as circumcision and food laws rather than good works in general. Salvation through works could then be harmonised with Salvation through faith in what Jesus achieved through his sacrificial death.

Moreover, the New Testament suggest that, in the words of James ‘show me your faith without deeds and I will show you my faith by my deeds’, which suggests salvation through faith and salvation through moral effort are not separate theories and can be harmonised.

Perhaps the three models of atonement are not contradictory or mutually exclusive but help to bring out different aspects of the atonement. Each may help to support the other rather than contradict it outright.

(Note: You could consider the argument mentioned earlier that the Penal Substitution model is the mechanism by which everything else is achieved by Jesus on the cross. The cross as ransom, victory and moral example only work if Jesus took our punishment for us).

Task: Consider the three conclusions below. For each, try and think of arguments to support them. Which conclusion do you think is the strongest and why? Which conclusion do you think is the weakest and why?

The three images of the atonement (Sacrifice/Ransom; Satisfaction/Penal Substitution; Moral Example) are contradictory.

35

The three images of the atonement can be harmonised. It does not matter whether the three images are contradictory or not. They reflect the

mystery of the atonement.

Create your own essay plan to the question ‘The three models of atonement are complementary’ Evaluate this view.

Conclusion

Analysis: The extent to which the three models suggest that the Christian God is cruel.

Some argue that all three models could be interpreted to suggest the Christian God is cruel.

36

The Sacrificial model portrays Jesus’ death in terms of the Old Testament scapegoat or Passover lamb. A God who offers his own Son as a sacrifice to satisfy his own sense of justice is an angry tyrant who must be appeased before he forgives. The variant Ransom model makes God both a deceiver and a debtor.

The Satisfaction model is based on medieval concepts and depicts God as a feudal overlord concerned more with his own hurt pride than with the hurt experienced by his Son. The reformer’s Penal Substitution model simply replaced Anselm’s concept of God’s offended honour with the concept of God’s offended justice. It portrays God as vengeful who perpetrates ‘a form of cosmic child abuse’ against his Son. God is seen as a God of retribution rather than love.

The Moral Example model fails to explain the need for the crucifixion. Why did Jesus have to die if all he needed to do was provide a perfect moral example? This isn’t consistent with an omnibenevolent God.

Others argue that none of the three models suggest a cruel God. The very word ‘atonement’ expresses the idea that there is a need for sinful humanity to be reconciled with God. Jesus’ death was God’s way of achieving this and saving humanity. The resurrection demonstrates God’s love for both humanity and his Son showing that the end justifies the means.

The Sacrificial/Ransom models emphasise that Jesus willingly died for his enemies. As Jesus is God, the sacrifice of Jesus causes suffering to God himself. The Satisfaction/Penal Substitution models emphasise that Jesus died the death that sinners deserved. This is the ultimate expression of divine love. The Moral Example in particular emphasises that Jesus willingly accepted an undeserved death and it is this demonstration of love that moves Christians to repent and reconcile themselves with God.

Task: Consider the three conclusions below. For each, try and think of arguments to support them. Which conclusion do you think is the strongest and why? Which conclusion do you think is the weakest and why?

All three models of the atonement portray the Christian God as cruel. Only some of the models of atonement portray the Christian God as cruel. None of the models of atonement portray the Christian God as cruel. In fact, they demon-

strate his love for humanity and his Son.

Candidates could include some or all of the following, but other relevant points should be credited. Logically, the theories of the atonement suggest that God is either cruel or limited in power. If God could restore right relationship without torturing and killing Jesus, then God should have done so. If God

37

is only able to forgive sin (and it must be forgiven) through sacrifice and death, then God cannotbe all-powerful. Penal substitution theory suggests that God is not willing and/or able to simply forgive human sin, but must instead ensure someone is punished. This does not fit well with the image of a loving God. The theory that Jesus’ life and death was a moral example does not strictly require Jesus to die to have been a sufficient example to restore humanity, as death is only part of the story – the fact he was martyred shows God is unnecessarily cruel. If God created humanity (as is taught in Christianity), God must have created the capacity to sin, which can (according to the above) only be resolved through death. For God to act in such a way suggests that God is cruel. Although the result is death, the theories of atonement actually emphasise God’s love when taken in the context of Christian teaching. According to the Trinitarian model, Jesus is God, so we can understand the atonement as God sacrificing God’s self rather than punishing humans. This isultimately a loving action, not a cruel one. The implication that death is the punishment for sin may seem unjust and even cruel to humans, but humans are not able to understand the bigger picture in the same way that God can. Just because God requires death as the recompense for sin does not mean that God is indifferent to suffering, or takes pleasure in it (which is what the label ‘cruel’ would imply). The Bible suggests that Jesus had a choice as to whether or not to die – Jesus chose to sacrifice himself for humanity, which Christians claim is an expression of God’s love.

Overall, candidates should engage with the debate and come to a substantiated evaluation regarding

38

39