Myths of Why Jesus Died, Part Three (or the benefits of the Moral Example theory)

This is Father Jared Cramer from St. John’s Episcopal Church in Grand Haven, Michigan, here with today’s edition of Christian Mythbusters, a regular segment I offer to counter some common misconceptions about the Christian faith. I’ve been gone the past couple weeks enjoying some Eastertide rest, relaxation, and travel, but it’s a delight to be back with you this week for another edition of Christan Mythbusters. I’m particularly excited because I get to tell you about yet ANOTHER way Christians have historically understood what God in Christ did to effect the salvation of all people. And so, let’s continue breaking the myth that Jesus died so you can go to heaven because, as I’ve said a few times now, it’s about so much more than that. Just to remind you, I started this short series with an acknowledgment that the “satisfaction” theory of the atonement is the one with which most Christians are familiar. This is often described as the idea that Jesus died to satisfy the wrath of an angry God upon our sins. (And, yes, I suggested that’s not really the best way to understand the satisfaction theory, that it’s more about God in Christ choosing to suffer alongside of us, to make right in God’s own being the horrors and injustices humanity has wrought.) Then, in my last episode I talked about the Christus Victor theory of the atonement, the one that was dominant in the early church and whose central theme is “the idea of the Atonement as a Divine conflict and victory; Christ – Christus Victor – fights against and triumphs over the evil powers of the world, the 'tyrants' under which humanity is in bondage and suffering, and in Him God reconciles the world to Himself.” This week, though, I want to talk about the third of the classic theories of the atonement (aren’t you excited?). This is the one perhaps articulated best by someone named twelfth-century French philosopher, Peter Abelard. Abelard worried that the satisfaction theory made God seem more harsh and judgmental than a truly loving divine being. So, he focused on what became known as the “Moral Example” theory of the atonement. Abelard rejected the idea that the death of Christ was a ransom paid either to the devil or even to satisfy the honor and justice of God. Rather, Abelard argued that "Jesus died as the demonstration of God's love", a demonstration which can change the hearts and minds of the sinners, turning back to God. Eventually, Abelard’s view was condemned by the Council of Sens and he himself was excommunicated, but his perspectives on the atonement have captivated succeeding generations of theologians and philosophers. They gained new steam under philosophers like Immanuel Kant. In my own tradition, the Anglican theologian Hastings Rashdall said that Christ's life was a demonstration of God's love so profound that Christ was willing to die rather than compromise his character. This in turn inspires believers to emulate his character and his intimacy with the Father.” In the end, no one view of the atonement is probably perfectly adequate. And rather than seeing them as a buffet from which we choose the one we like best, I think we should see them as different facets of the mystery of God’s salvation. Because in a world where there are real victims, there must be real justice that satisfies the wrong that was done. In a world where evil seems so powerful, love must even more powerfully overcome it. And, in the end, if Jesus’ salvation of the world doesn’t change how we live, doesn’t change our hearts and minds… then what good could it be? Thanks for being with me. To find out more about my parish, you can go to sjegh.com. Until next time, remember, protest like Jesus, love recklessly, and live your faith out in a community that accepts you but also challenges you to be better tomorrow than you are today.