Thanks, Stardust. That was very kind of you. 

But do the oldies here really have the theology of atonement all figured out?  Or has it just been put in a box never again to be thought about anew?

Great question, Alex. I hope others respond to it with their views as well.

I think first of all it's important to say that the term "atonement theology" is like the term "Christian theology"; it's an umbrella category with many different varieties underneath.  So I'm guessing that your theology prof was suggesting that certain kinds of atonement theology were a mistake for the church to adopt.  (For example, Lonergan's understanding of religious conversion is based on a type of atonement theology rooted in Aquinas that suggests faith, hope, and love are transcendental realities which radically alter the course of human development for the better. So that is an example of atonement theology that your prof might be more inclined toward.)

Maybe a good way to think about your question is to imagine a continuum of views. On the South end of the continuum is the view of Jesus as a great man, much like Ghandi and Martin Luther King were great men.  On the North end of the continuum is the view of Jesus as the one and only, wholly human, wholly divine, son of the Living God.  The atonement theologies that are often stongly opposed by progressive theologians, both Catholic and Protestant, tend to be the ones that fall on the extreme North end of the continuum. There, for example, the blood of Jesus is not a symbol of a subtle spiritual reality, but a literal world-saving substance that purifies the sinful bodies and souls of fallen humanity.  Having said that, though, the atonement theologies at the far South end of the continuum are just as problematic.  There, for example, the blood of Jesus can become a metaphor for something like class consciousness, which empowers the underclass to realize their domination by the elite and to rebel against it for their fair share of society's resources.  So the blood of Che Guevarra, for example, has the same metaphorical power as the blood of Jesus. At this end, you end up with a completely flat, modernist understanding of life. No Trancendence.

So, an easy solution to these extremes is to say that a balanced theology is somewhere in the hypothetical middle.  I  think this is probably the typical UCC stance, although I've heard both extremes  in the UCC as well.

From my perspective (which I'm trying to sort out in this blog with others help) there is a problem with that whole North/South continuum and how it understands human nature.  I think the process of atonement, like human beings themselves, is inter-subjective.  It happens in the space between persons, rather than through a kind of spiritual injection of each individual with the saving blood of Christ, on the one hand, or through protest and policy development, on the other. It's much more subtle than either of those extremes.  A good example of this is seen in how infants and parents shape one another's experience for better and for worse.  Human nature is not enclosed within the skin of each individual human being, like that North/South continuum imagines it to be. There is an in-between space which, though invisible, is very real. That is where, in my experience, we encounter God. It is where the Kingdom of God is, because it is where at-one-ment happens.

Another thought, Alex, since we both affirm a place of dignity for GLBT persons in the church -- consider the differences between arriving at that affirming position out of an ideological commitment and out of an intersubjective experience of at-one-ment in relation to marginalized persons. I would argue that Jesus' way was not the former but the latter, and that these two ways lead to very different kinds of places .

Bingo!  It reminds me of the contrast between the Law spelled out in black and white in a policies & procedures manual, and the fulfillment of the Law within an actually loving heart/mind.

Another example from Buddhism:  A practitioner vows to live according to five moral precepts (no killing; no stealing; no verbal exploitation; no emotional-sexual exploitation; no diminishing of self-awareness).  But the irony is that the vows are not possible to keep (!)... without a well deveoped, peaceful mind, which requires meditation, and also reflection on the Buddha's teachings.  The entry point to practice, however, is the moral vows.  So what happens is that you have moral restraint working on one end and practices that reduce the need for moral restraint on the other end.

I think we're really good in the UCC at the policy, procedure, moral restraint level.  But I think we have a theological deficiency that leaves us pretty weak on the level of heart transforming practices, spiritual formation, etc..

Hi Pilgrim,

I left you a response to this on the blog.

Cheers,

Rishi