Making Sense of God's Love

Atonement and redemption

Lorraine Cavanagh

• Publisher: SPCK Publishing
• Year: 2012
• Print ISBN: 9780281064038
• eBook ISBN: 9780281066551
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Christian Ministry

How can we be restored to God's love? Is there a way back?

Many people are put off Christianity by the idea of God punishing his Son for our sins. They find it hard to believe in a loving God who appears to be so angry and vindictive. Many also feel that the things Christians teach, publicly or privately, do not work for them in real life.

This book therefore addresses some of the difficult questions that these people are asking. It is also for those who may be wanting to return to their faith, and for those who would like to explore it in greater depth. It aims to create an open theological landscape, which will take account of the many different ways in which we are saved and restored.

Making Sense of God's Love will help to guide seekers towards a new understanding of what it really means to live as people who have been forgiven and brought into an honest and deep relationship with God through the atoning and redemptive work of Jesus Christ.

Part 1

MAKING SENSE OF ATONEMENT

1

Why atonement?

Why do we need atonement? Why is God so violent? Why did Christ have to die? Doesn’t the Church need to atone for its own past? How do we connect with atonement today?

No matter how hard they try, human beings cannot hide from the past. Neither can they avoid taking responsibility for history in the present. Global conflicts from the Middle East to the Balkan States, and from Africa to Northern Ireland, have shown that it is impossible for any one generation to opt out of the ongoing events which make their history by attempting to forget without having first forgiven. Without an ongoing and truthful forgiveness, the past returns in violent episodic attempts to shift the burden of blame on to the other person or group.

‘To begin to live in the present, we must first atone for our past, and be finished with it…’¹ These words from Chekhov’s The Cherry Orchard express an underlying human anxiety about blame. Blame and responsibility for suffering are either assumed to belong together or are confused with each other, so that someone or something must be blamed, or held responsible, if suffering is to be at all bearable. But blaming the other makes a victim of both. There is very little one party can do when blamed for the cause of a dispute, except to pass the blame back to another person or to an earlier event, or bring it forward into the present by transferring it to a group or individual involved in the current conflict situation. Bringing it forward into the present widens the circle of violence and feeds into the existing stagnant pool of distrust and recrimination which, so far, has failed to sustain the common life or give hope for the future. The Cold War years were an example of the kind of sterile and static climate of fear in which a war that was in every sense cold was sustained. Unlike blame, taking responsibility for the suffering caused to another involves an active, or dynamic, initiative. It moves the situation forward and allows for the possibility of a future by involving the active engagement of one or both parties with the pain which has been caused. Where blame looks for a passive victim, taking responsibility works in a common will for active reconciliation which will in turn sustain the renewed life of a future community or relationship.

Chekhov was writing towards the end of the nineteenth century when psychology was still in its infancy. There were few acceptable ways of explaining and attempting to address feelings of personal guilt or of a shared sense of historical responsibility for the actions of previous generations. Despite this, the need to make up for past actions and events has figured in our emotional landscape for as long as human beings have been able to record their story. Art dating from the earliest millennia seems to link sacrifice with the need to atone for something in placating a wrathful god. In the early part of the twentieth century Jung connected the subconscious and dreams with the conscious thoughts and feelings of his patients. At the same time, he allowed his thinking to be informed by the spiritual dimension of the human psyche and with the way in which paying attention to the shadow side of human personality helps us come to terms with guilt. Jung’s understanding of the spiritual was also shaped by an understanding of a higher power which embodied both dark and light, good and bad.

Alienation and blame – on not being a loser

The idea of atoning for past actions implies a human need for the kind of relatedness which comes with forgiveness, when the bond of trust is re-established and a person no longer feels alone or alienated. Alone, we cannot bear ourselves, or the harsh realities which confront us daily in the news. But, at the same time, we are accustomed to them and to having to live at times in a state of chronic loneliness. Human beings have learned to adapt to violence and pain by putting up defences which separate, or alienate, them from each other. Violence and pain are also deeply embedded in our unconscious or inner world, and we accept the fact that most people, as well as whole nations and communities, experience alienation at some point in their individual lives or in their history.

Alienation, as it is defined from the word ‘alienate’, is a sense of ‘isolation or estrangement’ from others.² Violent crimes such as those witnessed in Hungerford in 1987, Dunblane in 1996 and, more recently in 2010, on a single day in a number of small villages in Cumbria, suggest that alienation is part of even the most apparently ‘normal’ person’s emotional constitution. While it does not usually result in multiple killings, for most of us alienation amounts to what Jesus would have called ‘hardness of heart’. It is part of a technique for surviving and succeeding in a hard world. To be a ‘loser’ is to be ‘soft’, and a soft person becomes a soft target, someone who cannot survive, who cannot fight their patch and who is therefore a natural victim.³ War, massacres and crime on the streets are the result of alienation caused by the human capacity to inflict damage on ourselves and on our surroundings. It requires that we continually review and revise the language we use to explain evil and the Christian understanding of atonement.

---

Alienation brings a sense of a particular friendship having been spoiled

---

In the world and in people’s lives, things have gone wrong. Decisions have been taken and choices made for all the wrong reasons. Sometimes we sense, from having lived with the consequences of these errors of choice and judgement, that we lack something, that we live in a state of estrangement with regard to the kind of relationship that fills the gap which work and lifestyle cannot fill. Alienation brings with it a sense of a particular friendship having been spoiled, even if the friendship has carried on without the shared pain or disappointment ever being mentioned, let alone resolved. This suggests that, through the spoiling of human relationships, there is a greater relationship which needs to be put right.

Coming to terms with reality

In his poem ‘The Hound of Heaven’ Francis Thompson speaks of the way denial of this particular relationship, and of the need to put it right, affects our perspective on happiness and our sense of self-worth. In spoiling this unique relationship we have wounded ourselves, so that our actions and choices become a form of self-betrayal, a denial of our true self and of the good in us which can only be re-created in relationship with the God who is Love itself. ‘All things betray thee, who betrayest Me.’⁴

---

Our attempts at relationship go wrong because of our inclination for destroying the people and things we need most

---

We know ourselves to be relating beings and that our attempts at relationship go wrong because of our human nature and its inclination for destroying the people and things we need most. But this self-awareness is also a sign of maturity and of a coming to terms with reality itself. It begins to make reality ‘bearable’. Knowing who we are and what we lack is grounded in something which has to do with realizing the full implication of what it means to be human and the effect human nature has on our attempts to relate to others, including the physical world and those with whom we share it. Right relationship with the higher power which we call God is worked out in all other relationships, although this productive working can only take effect when both parties, God and human beings, are working towards the same ends, the purposes of a loving God for all people, and not only for one group or one individual. The paradox lies in finding success in understanding ourselves as responsible beings acting within this wider loving purpose, if we are to truly ‘succeed’ in our individual lives. Chekhov’s words therefore speak of something more than drawing a line under the past, or a veil over past wrongs.

Reconnecting with the past

Atoning for the past is about reconnecting the past with the present. In other words, it allows for a healing of the past in facing the pain which it caused and which is still being experienced in the present. One of the most recent examples of healing and atonement on a national scale was effected through the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission, mediated by Archbishop Desmond Tutu. It revealed atonement to be a process of reparation, like the mending of a torn fabric. This kind of atonement process does not try to pretend that the damage never happened. Instead, a new creation emerges out of the damage itself, so that what has ‘gone wrong’ is ‘put right’ in bringing past and present together in a truthful way. But historical, or collective, atonement has to be simultaneously worked out in individual relationships. Both of these processes begin and end in God’s own atonement ‘worked out’ with and for us in the person of Jesus Christ.

Atonement and the Church

Losing sight of the solidarity which exists between God and human beings in the person of Jesus Christ leads to serious misunderstandings about the Christian faith, as well as the Church. For one thing, it has created the impression that Christianity is a religion which manipulates and damages the individual and that the Church is a hierarchical and largely male-dominated institution which exists to maintain the status quo by reinforcing feelings of personal guilt or inadequacy. This gives the impression that the Christian faith is manipulative and that the Church uses the Christian doctrines of atonement and redemption to exercise its power, although many Christians are only too aware of the Church’s need for forgiveness for its own past, up to and including the present day.

---

It has given rise to the idea that Christianity manipulates and damages the individual

---

---

It has created the impression that the Church uses the Christian doctrines of atonement and redemption to exercise its power

---

For Christians, their relationship with God is being worked out in the dynamic presence of Christ, his Holy Spirit, working in and through his Church on earth, a Church of which they are an integral part.⁵ When the institutional Church gets in the way of this work, through its divisions and conflicts and increasingly secular priorities, it sends out some very confusing messages about the unconditional love of God and the values and priorities of his kingdom. These messages undermine the Church’s own faith in the reality of God’s unconditional forgiveness and so help to perpetuate, in the minds of many people who do not go to church, a picture of a vindictive God whose only concern is to remind people of their shortcomings and general unworthiness. In other words, blocking forgiveness in its own life makes it difficult for the Church to be a channel of forgiveness to the secular world.

---

This makes it difficult for the Church to be a channel of forgiveness

---

God, atonement and people

These ideas about the Church not only misrepresent God but also give a false idea of the nature of culpability, and here I would like to distinguish between culpability and guilt. Briefly stated, culpability involves taking responsibility for the effect of wrong actions, while guilt is the result of the imposition of that culpability through judgement or blame. With the free owning of responsibility comes forgiveness. With judgement come guilt and condemnation. Feelings of guilt reduce any sense of responsibility for the consequences of our words and actions to the fear of punishment. This has the effect of removing, or at least obscuring, the healthy regret which a person ought to feel when he or she has wronged someone else.⁶

Fear of punishment is ultimately ego-driven and feelings of guilt and denial will allow us to contrive any number of ways to avoid it. One of these allows a person to avoid responsibility for what has occurred, as well as for putting matters to right. Avoiding responsibility comes with adopting the position of victim, which is not the same as being presumed to be a soft target in the sense I described earlier. In this context, being a victim is a means of exercising control over others through guilt. In other words, it is always someone else’s fault that things are the way they are and it is always with someone else that the blame lies. Governments are blamed and individuals often held unfairly to account for everything that is wrong in society, all of which conveniently ignores the fact that it is we who vote governments into power in the first place, so there is perhaps some truth in the saying that we get the governments we deserve.⁷

The victim mentality also allows those who may have been wronged, and are therefore genuine victims, to avoid taking responsibility for repairing the damage done to themselves or to a third party, including the perpetrator. Sadly, we see this syndrome occurring in the context of the most righteous causes. Minority groups allow themselves to continue to be seen as the victims of injustice, even when the injustice has begun to be put right. In some cases, a whole group continues to be blamed for their suffering, irrespective of the efforts and sacrifices made by many individuals to see justice done; as when all men are seen as sexist, or all women as power-hungry men-haters. All of this hostility is fuelled by fear. Fear now becomes the source of the two most pernicious effects of wrongdoing on the human person and on relationships between people in the wider contexts of history and society. These are the fear of retribution, from God as well as from people, and the fear of other people for other indirectly related reasons. By allowing these two closely related fears to subtly dominate their moral consciousness, human beings have wrought all manner of destruction upon themselves and upon the world.

Jesus Christ enters into this destruction and takes into himself the pain which it causes. In other words...

Table of contents

• Cover
• About the Author
• Title page
• Imprint
• Dedication
• Declaration
• Table of contents
• Introduction
• Part 1: Making Sense of Atonement
• Part 2: Making Sense of Redemption
• Notes
• Further reading