What Kind of God?

It was a poor ending to an otherwise good little series. But before I get into that, let me ask a question: If you had to pick one of these examples to represent your understanding of God – your prevailing archetype for the holy, if you will -- which one would it be?

A) The Creator of All Things

B) The Savior

C) The Long-Lost Father

D) The Judge

Ponder that for a bit…

I was recently privileged to lead our life group through a three week mini-series on Atonement. What is it? How do we define it? Why is it important? How do we view it? How do we give such a powerful (if abstract) theological concept some meaning and value in our day-to-day lives?

We discussed Christus Victor theology and how it gave us the “recapitulation” and “ransom theories.” We discussed St Anselm’s Satisfaction model, and how it reflected the social mores and balances of medieval times. We discussed Abelard’s Moral Influence model from the 12^th century, and the granddaddy of modern atonement theology, Substitution and especially the focus on “Penal substitution”.

My goal wasn’t to pick one of these as definitive (I thought), but to see them all as a product of their particular time and place. Did we in fact need them all? How did each one paint the picture of Jesus’ life and death and resurrection? Or was there some other emerging theory of atonement that could encompass them all?

We talked a lot about the difficulty of language, and how the original English meanings of atonement, “to bring into unity, harmony, concord,” or “to become reconciled,” had become over time “making amends or reparation.” How did that change our understanding of Jesus’ acts? We talked about the fact that no one really knows what Paul’s Greek word in Romans 3.25, hilasterion, really means. Did he mean the “mercy seat” above the ark in the old temple, or did he mean the act of “making peace” between groups of people?

But by our last meeting this Friday, when we were really ready to tackle these deeper questions, I was emotionally and physically wiped out. I’d flown to Milwaukee for some meetings on Monday evening, and wound up flying 15 hours for 7 hours of meeting time. Then I had to work the rest of the week… and there’s an awful lot going on at work just now. So I came into our life group tired and scattered.

While I didn’t ask the questions above, the A through D questions on how one understands or “sees” God, I meant to. They would have been helpful. Most people would say “all of these, at one time or another,” but if we were forced to pick one dominant one, it might reveal which model of atonement meant the most to each of us individually.

If atonement was really all about reconciliation, I asked, and if reconciliation depended on two parties forgiving and finding common ground, could we ever imagine a situation where God sought our forgiveness? There was some silent thinking, but two immediate and very vocal answers: “No not ever” and “No way.” (If we weren't in a church-sponsored Life Group I'm sure I would have heard "HELL NO!")

One of our members, who I respect and admire a great deal, summed up penal substitution extraordinarily well when I asked why God would not seek our forgiveness: We were guilty of sin, there was nothing we could do to assuage our guilt, and God could not accept us into his holy presence with that guilt still on us. Jesus, though, took that guilt away. You don't seek forgiveness from those who have done wrong.

I was thinking more of the only context in which I can understand God and his relationship with us, that of loving Father and Children. In that context I could easily see myself (as a father) saying, "I need to punish you, even though I love you more than life itself. Please forgive me."

Back to my four questions. If someone said A, God is like more a Creator than anything else, I would expect them to see in the atonement a patching-up of beautiful, holy creation, like an artisan repairing a fatally cracked but priceless vase.

If someone said God was like B, a Savior, I would expect them to see in the atonement liberation, freedom from fear and freedom from darkness.

If someone said God is like C, the Long-Lost Father, I would expect them to see in the atonement the rejoining and healing of a broken family.

If someone is inclined to see God primarily as D, a Judge, then I might expect them to see in the atonement a legal process being overturned. As my wise friend said, it would be heavy in guilt, and perhaps even heavier in atonement as “overturning the sentence justly given to the guilty.”

But I didn’t use my archetypes. And I didn’t focus on our own sense of what atonement is and does. To be honest, I think I subconsciously wanted to sway people to my own view of atonement, a view that focused more on “reconciliation with a long-lost father” than “sentencing from a judge.” That’s where I went wrong. In the end I think we all left unsatisfied, feeling that we'd explored something big and vague but not very filling.

Maybe that’s why James said “Not many of you should presume to be teachers…” I know I’m not a teacher, but I see clearly the traps that can come to those who teach. Our beliefs and ideals can get in the way not only of what is true, but of each person finding their way to truth. And what is Jesus and his atoning act but the grandest, most beautiful truth of all?