Labels

I didn’t have a very Sabbatical Sunday this week because I had to do a CPR course in the city at Dymocks building. So I missed my usual congregation and attended the Wesley Mission in the city, which I used to attend between 2005-2007 when I was still a medical student/ intern living in Sydney CBD! It was the place where I did introductory courses like “The Purpose Driven Life” and “The Alpha Course”.

The speaker that day was Rev Dr Rick Dacey, an American who grew up in Massachusetts. The title in the newsletter was called “Do you want to be blessed?” but the talk was kind of different, as it was more on the topic of “labels”, and I found it a very interesting talk.

During worship time, a strange looking agitated elderly man walked into the congregation and pointed his walking stick towards the Rev and called out some things that didn’t make sense for less than one minute and immediately walked off saying he doesn’t believe in Jesus. That was a rather unexpected scene as this man is a stranger to this congregation. Anyways the congregation prayed for this man for a minute.

First Rev Dacey describes how the Eastwood region is now very multicultural. One day, when he was shopping there, he was lining up behind a father and son who looked 12y.o. or so. The father spoke to his son in a wholesome Aussie accent, “look at this, the whole place is crawling with them!” Then this guy turned to Rev Dacey, and on seeing that he is also of Caucasian appearance, tried to get him into the conversation with the assumption that he is also “Aussie” and became rather embarrassed when Rev Dacey said “I am one of them too”.

Rev Dacey thinks this man is racist. But he also becomes aware that when he thinks of this, he is also sticking a label on this man, as a “racist”. He asked us, is he not like the Pharisee in Luke 18:11 in this case? “The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other people--robbers, evildoers, adulterers--or even like this tax collector.” vs "thank God I am not a racist"?

Rev Dacey talked about the Parable of the Good Samaritan from Luke 10:25-37, and how Jesus commands us to “love your neighbor”. When we hear the word Samaritan, we usually think it’s referring to a good guy. However, at that time, historian Josephus said that the Samaritans and Judeans were conducting terrorist attacks on one another. So the Judeans did not think the Samaritans were good guys at all! And Jesus was telling them the Samaritans were their neighbors and to love them!

Rev Dacey then goes on to talk about his childhood background, where his mother grew up in the great depression and developed the habit of never letting anything go to waste. She worked in a supermarket and there was always some canned food which becomes cheap because their labels have fallen off. People in the shop always attempted to have a guess of what those cans were and labelled it with a marker. However, sometimes they got it wrong. For instance, one day his mother brought home one of those cans and they were expecting it to be pear, but it turned out to be peas. So labels can sometimes to be useful, but sometimes not, because we can get it wrong.

Rev Dacey then talks about another time when he went to visit an African-American church in Connecticut because that church is really famous for its worship. When he got into that unfamiliar neighborhood, he naturally started thinking about what each person on the street was up to as he checked them out, and made a few assumptions. Then he got to the church and sat at the very back. Someone warmly greeted him and asked about his background and when she learned he is a pastor, she immediately brought him to the front of the congregation and the whole congregation welcomed him warmly! He is very impressed with the attitude of this church, and that they didn’t try to label him despite him being Caucasian!

Rev Dacey thinks that labels can sometimes be helpful, and sometimes not. For instance, beloved, children of God, etc. are helpful labels.

My personal thoughts:

It is a very interesting sermon and really got me thinking about how each one of us come to our current worldviews. We all make sense of the world through labels, there’s no way around that. We learn from experience, and the way we make sense of the world around us is based on our past experience hence it involves many short cuts. Even language has many limitations, so people would have difficulty communicating anything without using labels in one way or another.

For instance, that strange looking man who walked into the congregation and started saying things that didn’t make sense: based on my medical background I would consider that man to be psychotic. Most people wouldn’t even dare to approach him because he acted really strangely. The term psychosis is a term developed by humans after watching some behavior pattern that’s quite similar across some people. Some cultures may not even have such terms in their language! And even things like medical knowledge, is not something absolute, because it is constantly being updated. For instance, the DSM manual gets updated regularly.

I think we really can’t avoid using labels in our lives. Problems come when we are using labels without being self-aware of doing so, and that sometimes we can be very wrong in our assumptions without realizing it.

“The Current Trend of Missions” by Dr. Scott Moreau

On the 16 Nov, Dr. Scott Moreau from Wheaton College was invited to Barnabas School for Missions in Taipei to give a talk on “the current trend of missions”. This was his first visit to Taiwan:

God is very active in the world all the time. When we ask what God is doing in missions, we can ask what God is doing in the world.

There are four clusters to look at:

1)      The pace of missions:

Missions is going very fast today. It wasn’t always that way. A Japanese theologian wrote a book, “Three Mile an Hour God”, now we’re doing three-thousand miles per hour! 100 years ago the colonial power was very strong in the world.

1900: months by boat or foot.

1950: weeks by boat and car.

2016: days or hours by plane. For instance, 15-hour flight from Chicago to Hong Kong. Dr. Moreau’s shortest mission only took a weekend: Left Chicago Thursday night, arrived in Bulgaria on Friday, spoke all day long in a church on Saturday, preached in two churches on Sunday, then went back to Chicago on Monday.

1900: till death do I leave. In the 1900s, missionaries pack all their things in a coffin and ship all their things in the coffin. They aren’t planning on dying quickly but they plan on dying where they serve in their missions.

1950s: career in missions.

2000: short to mid-term missions.

Today: micro-term missions, being there for a few hours and fly back home.

The pace of communication:

1900: Letters take weeks by boat.

Now: One click of a button on social media and your family and friends around the world gets an update instantaneously.

Pace of mission and communication is fast.

2)      The economics of missions/Missionomics:

Eras of globalization:

1517-1791: Columbus sailed. Martin Luther nailed the 95 theses. Catholic church and orthodox churches were very active in missions, while early reformers were not engaged in missions. The Moravians were involved in missions, and they fund missions by giving people only enough money to go to the port! Then these missionaries needed a skill to get on the boat.

1792-1910: Catholics and orthodox were still engaged in missions. William Carey wrote a special book, “On a means of conversion of the heathen”. Carey suggest forming societies, which we call “mission agencies” today. The purpose of these societies was to collect funds for the missionaries and send the missionaries overseas. The organization raised the funds, individual missionaries didn’t need to.

1910: A very large missionary congress took place in Edinburg. This was the last conference the evangelicals came together with the mainline church. Conservative ones: Evangelicals. Less conservative: mainline church.

1911-1974: Rise of organizations of denominations that come under one umbrella, under ecumenical organizations, eg. World Council of Churches.

1974: The first year Lausanne had its first big gathering. Billy Graham was the main brain trust behind this. Some 4000 people came to the gathering. We see new agencies and parachurch groups. Campus Crusade was one of the parachurch groups that formed. Lausanne had people from all over the world: the most diverse gathering of the church up til the history of that time.

1974-present: Migratory missionaries, eg. Chinese diaspora, becoming missionaries in new places. Some are after better jobs, some are refugees. Sometimes they are accidental missionaries, they did not want to be missionaries. They carry their faith with them, so even though they didn’t intend to be missionaries, they still spread the faith. Missions is from everywhere to everywhere.  

Missions Funding:

1900: Wealthy benefactors.

1950: Generous individuals, many more person giving less per person.

1980: Charitable foundations, under a tax code.

2000: Income generating missionaries, the largest Korean sending agency has 1500 missionaries, about 1490 of those missionaries generate their money by working. They are “tentmakers”. Only 10 of them are supported by the church. They are not following the western model of missions, but developed their own model. The Koreans are very hard working. They also often have the wife who is the professional worker, and the husband evangelizes on campus. This is not even a normal Korean model!

3)      Missionaries and agencies:

20^th century: Professional missionaries that go everywhere. Seminary degrees, training to work as missionaries.

Today: Many people who are amateurs in missions but still going out for missions. We need more schools like Barnabas School for Missions. They don’t have the same level of preparation like the missionaries 100 years ago, not as sophisticated theologically, and may be learning from error as they serve. “Missions, it seems, has become any Christian volunteering to be sent anywhere in the world at any expense to do anything for any period.” Ralph Winter. Winter is actually sad that this is what happening today.

US tentmakers tripled between 1996 and 2008. The industry has changed in the last 100 years. 1915 missions were dominated by mainline denominations, but with theological paradigm shifts, many lost their focus on mission, so that by the end of the 20^th century 95% of the missionaries were coming out by the evangelical movement and not from the major denominations. Today, the evangelical movement is splintering and going into many different directions. Many of us know we just had an election in the US, and apparently 80% of evangelicals voted for Trump. Dr. Moreau joked to his wife that maybe he’ll just stay in his next destination Hong Kong instead of returning to the US, and ask her to join him there.

Comparing the Edinburgh meeting in 1910 vs. the Lausanne meeting in Capetown 1974: In 100 years God has raised up a church that is no longer male, white and old.

1910: People uses the term missions with “s” all the time.

1960: it lost its “s”.

When we use “s” today, it’s about activities, agencies, missionaries.

When we drop the “s”, it means everything that God is doing through the church, not just what the church itself is doing. We even have a bigger term now, Missio Dei, mission of God! All of mission is God’s work. You can’t go anywhere in the world where God hasn’t already been there in some form. He causes the sun to shine, the rain to fall, everywhere in the world. He reveals himself through nature, the sciences, and many other ways. God is active outside of the world, and Missio Dei is the word we use to describe that.

1900s: Social gospel, we need to meet the physical needs of people. This is due to a theological shift away from evangelism. As ministers became more liberal theologically, they back away from the gospel and started doing more social work. This was the first version of holism; Dr. Moreau calls it holism 1. Now we’re looking at a newer vision of holism. Early on, evangelicals said no to this: they separate themselves from those who preach a social gospel only. Word and deed must go together. The rise of the Pentecostal movement adds a third component: miracles and signs and wonders as a part of holism 2. From 1970s until today, evangelicals have been arguing about this. It will be interesting to see what comes out of this movement. We have to be careful not to let go of the gospel again this time.

New ways of “doing” missions:

In the early 1900s, we used the word “indigenization”. The people who developed this idea talked about the “3-selfs”, which draws on mission thinking. Churches that were self-governing, self-supporting and self-evangelizing. This is still good work today but has been replaced by the word “contextualization”, which talks about everything that the church is.

4)      New Partners in the Task

NEMA (Nigeria Evangelical Missions Association): 90 agencies and churches are part of this. They have a big vision: they want to send 25,000 Nigerian missionaries to go to Jerusalem. Currently there are 4,000 workers.

COMIBAM (Ibero-American Missionary Cooperation Congresses): An organization that helps Latin American church become a missionary community.

IMA (India Missions Association): They want to establish Jesus worshipping fellowships among every people group in India and beyond.

Even US agencies are hiring more non-US citizens than US citizens!

The center of missions has shifted completely. In 1910, it was from US and Europe to the rest of the world. Today it’s from everywhere to everywhere. We’re seeing God do amazing things.

Trivia:

Where is the largest church in the world? Seoul, Korea. 800,000 members of one church.

In what country are the churches working to mobilize 100,000 cross-cultural tent-making missionaries who will fan out across central Asia to the Middle East? China.

What continent has the most evangelical Christians? Asia (small percentage of Christians in a much larger population, eg. China has more people than Africa. India also has more people than Africa.).

What continent has the highest growth rate of Christians during the 20^th century? Africa.

What continent has the highest percentage of Christians actively sharing their faith? Asia (60% of Asia’s 312 million Christians actively witness to their faith).

What is the largest mission association (umbrella organization for missions agencies) in the world? India Missions Association.

Which country has the most students involved in campus Christian groups? Nigeria.

Which country provides the most members of Operation Mobilization? India.

Which country sends out the most missionaries per Christian? Singapore.

In which country has it been reported that between 1/2 to 1 million Muslims come to Christ in the past 5 years? Iran.

Conclusion: It is God’s mission and He is doing wonderful things around the world!

Q&A for Dr. Moreau:

Q: Should we receive full theological training before we go out as missionaries?

A: I would rather you receive missions training. You can receive good theological training everywhere in the world. But I am not convinced you can receive good mission training everywhere in the world. Some people never grow in their knowledge of cultures. To be a good cross-cultural learner, we need to be humble. But we all have problems in learning how to live in a different culture. A good missions training with a theological foundation is better than just good theological training. I am not arguing against good theological training. Everyone can benefit from good theological training. However, most theological training does not understand culture very well.

Q: Middle East is dangerous now. Are there still many missionaries going to Middle East? What’s the most effective way to evangelize to the Middle East?

A: Sat 7 is doing missions from outside the Middle East, but the programs are by Middle Easterners for Middle Easterners. They address the concerns the Middle Easterners have. One of the ways God is bringing Muslims to Christ is through dreams. I have yet to find an American theologian writing a book on dreams. If we begin to address the issues they are facing rather than carry our issues on to them, it will be easier to evangelize to them. It’s also a big challenge for me to go to the Middle East. You can tell I am American just by looking at me. If I go in without an income, they’d think I am CIA. You might be able to go the Middle East and they might think it’s strange to see you, but they will not think CIA. We don’t need Americans and Europeans going to the Middle East. We need Asians, Africans, Latin Americans to go in. Perhaps God is calling some of you to go into the Middle East. I would rejoice that. But I hope some of your training includes learning Middle Eastern culture. It’s a real challenge to go into the Middle East if you are a single woman, because in Muslim society an unescorted single woman is always a target. And yet a woman can get into the home of a Muslim family and speak with the wife, whereas a man can never get into the house. The man can speak with the man who has to defend his Muslim faith. But the wife doesn’t have to defend her faith. Many times we see the wife come to faith, who will lead the children to faith, and perhaps even the husband, but it’s a challenge. Do not force them to immediately do things like immediately be baptized. Many Muslims come to church and that’s ok, but they see baptism as a dangerous step. Let them decide what’s the right timing for it. There has been more Muslims moving to Christ in the last 14 years than the last 1400 years. God is doing very exciting things. For more details, read “A Wind in the House of Islam”, David Garrison.  

Q: What’s the pros and cons for professional missionaries vs tentmaking missionaries?

A: When missionaries rely on outside funding to keep the business alive, often the business will fail. And the local person will wonder who this person is that doesn’t make any money and he has a nice car and is able to fly home on a regular basis. And then they will think CIA again. If missionaries are trained properly they will find that there are many business opportunities around the world. But it is very hard work to start a business. Missionaries with good intentions but no trainings often fail in what they’re trying to do. Maybe we need to go back to the Moravian model. The ability to do business well is an important part of being a missionary. The Korean tentmakers: They did not all start their own business but they went to look for jobs in companies that would hire them as migrants. Often when the women are working, they work as nurses, with wonderful qualifications in an industry that needs a lot of employees. We have not done this yet but I advocate mission training incorporate good business practice training as well too. That way people go out as trained missionaries and business people and they are more likely to be strong and to survive when it gets hard. Maybe you can incorporate this here, which we cannot do in the US, and you can lead the way in this. The challenge is that some people may become so focused on doing business that they forget they are missionaries.

Q: Most of the missionary agencies require missionaries to do fund raising. For most of these missionaries coming from third world countries, how can they generate the money if their income is much lower than the countries they’re being sent to? 

A: That’s where I think mission agencies in the majority world need to set new standards. The traditional William Carey model is that missionaries do not generate income by work, but generate income by asking people. While there can be some benefits for Taiwanese going to the US to raise money, I also see some problems with it. There is an element of ongoing dependence. Americans can be generous, but they can also tell you how to be a missionary, so the money can come with some strings attached to it. Perhaps you have to start new agencies here to do this. One of my students from Wheaton wanted to be a pilot in the Middle East. He was hoping to fly for a Middle Eastern airline that he can use that as a platform for his witness. So he graduated from the program and became a pilot for the United Airlines for the US. After 8 years, Emirates had 12 spots for the position as a pilot and 20,000 applications for those slots. He got one of them. In part because he had two passports and his wife had two passports. The airline does not want to spend half a million training a pilot only to have the pilot leave the country 3 years later. As they looked at his application they probably saw that he has two passports as well as training in intercultural studies. So he was an expert pilot as well as expert in intercultural living. He’s not getting any money from the West for that. He’s getting paid by the Muslims.

Q: What do you see about refugees?

A: In the US, I am trying to help people welcome refugees. Often refugees have their faith broken and open to a new faith. They’ve been rejected by their own countries and their own people and they’re looking to start somewhere. I would like to see that our churches will help refugees even if they’re of other faith, and that our church will demonstrate to refugees that God loves them through the church. The success of a refugee resettlement program is not directly dependent on how many people come to Christ. It’s dependent on the church demonstrating the love of Christ for the stranger, the foreigner, the refugee.

The link to the power point slides of the talk:

http://tinyurl.com/ottydcl

Adventure’s coming! PUSH: Pray until something happens

Yesterday my housemate and I were doing daily devotionals using “Stream in the Desert”. The message was on the importance of perseverance in praying.

Then Jesus told his disciples a parable to show them that they should always pray and not give up. (Luke 18:1)

Coincidentally, today I realized that many of my prayers and the prayers of those around me suddenly all got answered at the same time!

A few months ago my mom received news about a medical exchange program in Taiwan. Around that time, I also happened to meet someone who showed me a video about healthcare in Taiwan. So I decided to apply for this program. The program recruits doctors from all over the world, so it will be a great opportunity to exchange technical information as well as make new friends. The exchange period has to be one month minimum, which incurs a big financial loss for me, but it’s a great opportunity for me to build up closer relationships with my relatives. Plus, I don’t need that much money anyways.

Subsequently, I received news of various problems popping up amongst my relatives and friends in Taiwan, and there are big national issues happening there, which made me even more certain that this trip I will be making at the end of this month is meant to be. One very close relative became terminally ill and kept it to herself until treatment has been completed. I prayed for her intensely for the last few weeks. Miraculously I received news yesterday that she’s gone into remission after treatment! I am even more surprised to hear that she’s been praying to God while she was sick, because there are no Christians amongst the relatives!

I also had a health scare myself a few months ago, and also found out yesterday that everything returned to normal.

And it was also yesterday that the exchange program sent me more information about the exchange. They informed me that the collaborative hospital for my exchange will be the Mackay Memorial Hospital! Now, I had a long history with this hospital because I used to visit this hospital all the time when I was a sickly skinny pale kid in Taiwan. And Dr Leslie Mackay is one of the best known missionaries in Taiwan history, was the one behind the establishment of this hospital!

In 1872, George Leslie Mackay from the Canadian Presbyterian church entered north Taiwan. Mackay was one of the most remarkable missionaries in the late Victoria era, whereby during his three decades in Taiwan he single-handedly established the groundwork of the northern Presbyterian mission, leaving at his death in 1901 sixty churches and more than two thousand baptised communicants, with a much larger pool of non-baptised enquirers. Blessed with a prodigious memory, he learned to write one hundred new Chinese characters daily and spent the rest of his time speaking with anybody who would listen to him. When the mission committee in Toronto instructed him to give up on his efforts to go native, build a Western-style home, establish a more normal Presbyterian mission, and wait for a “charming” Canadian lady to be sent out to share his work, he married a local woman Tiu Chhang Mia instead. He insisted upon indigenous leadership in every facet of ministry. Throughout his life he showed a marked aversion to correspondence with other missionaries, and is still a folk hero loved by the Taiwanese today, Christians and non-Christians alike. For more info about Taiwan’s church history, check out: http://dryvonnewang.blogspot.com/2014/09/christianity-in-taiwan-trend.html

Anyways, as soon as I click into the hospital website, an intense sense of call pops out!

The superintendent’s message goes like this:

I believe in “providing patients with comprehensive physical, psychological and spiritual care that is based on faith”. Faith is fundamental, and rises above all technological and humanity tasks. 2 Corinthians 3:5 says: “Not that we are competent in ourselves to claim anything for ourselves, but our competence comes from God.”

James 2:17 says: “faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.” Therefore we need to practice our faith through medical ministry, and I urge my colleagues to demonstrate your faith through your service attitude. There are many such exhortations and reminders in the Bible. Matthew 7:12 and Luke 6:31 tell us, “Do to others as you would have them do to you,” and Proverbs 3:27-28 says, “Do not withhold good from those to whom it is due, when it is in your power to act. Do not say to your neighbor, “Come back tomorrow and I’ll give it to you.”

Faith is not stagnant, but requires nourishment and irrigation. Hence we have spiritual activities such as prayers, daily bible reading and fellowship to help our colleagues understand the importance of reverence and thanksgiving so that we may remain steadfast and eager to help others, and build a solid foundation for leading others to the LORD.

http://eng.mmh.org.tw/dnn/Home/tabid/155/language/zh-TW/Default.aspx

And in the mission statement:

"We want to ensure that every patient receives comprehensive treatment of body, mind and soul as a way to demonstrate God’s love, and eventually to complete our ministry's divine mission of medical evangelism."

http://eng.mmh.org.tw/dnn/AboutMackay/OurMission/tabid/178/language/zh-TW/Default.aspx

During the last few months, I had been scratching my head a lot about my calling and future direction. This trip might hold the key. Looking forward to the upcoming adventure in two weeks time!

What do you mean I'm a sinner?!

We hear Christians say this all the time: we are all sinners... but what does it mean?
Lost at Sea (Full Flame Film Series) by Reinhard Bonnke:

https://youtu.be/FBUI5oOdpXQ

My friend sent me this clip, which was played in the Barnabas School of Missions yesterday: In this powerful segment from the Full Flame Film Series, Evangelist Reinhard Bonnke shares on the true mission of the Church and the calling of every Christian. This 10 minute clip tells us a thing or two about human nature.

Bible talks about sins in two ways:

1.          Specific actions: People today think more in terms of sins, that is individual wrong acts.

2.          Our nature: Many people are unable to grasp the concept of sin as an inner force, an inherent condition, a controlling power.

The essential nature of sin

l   Sensuality

n   The tendency of the lower or physical nature to dominate and control the higher or spiritual nature. As Paul warns, the “flesh”.

n   This view has significant shortcomings. It seems to disregard the fact that many sins, and perhaps the worst sins, are not physical in nature. Further, rigid control of one’s physical nature does not appear to have any marked effect upon one’s degree of sinfulness. Ascetics attempt to bring their physical impulses under control and yet they are not necessarily less sinful as a result. Other sins may be present, including pride. The sinful nature, repressed in one area, simply forces expression in some other area.

l   Selfishness

n   The “choice of self as the supreme end which constitutes the antithesis of supreme love to God”.

n   Preferring one’s own ideas to God’s truth, or the satisfaction of one’s own will to doing God’s will, or loving oneself more than God.

n   Problem with this view: Some of what we do cannot really be characterised as selfish in the strict sense, yet is sinful. For example, one can sin against God by loving some other person more, or by giving their lives for a cause that is opposed to that of God.

l   Displacement of God

n   Failure to let God be God. It is placing something else, anything else, in the supreme place which is His.

n   Choosing any finite object over God is wrong, no matter how selfless such an act might be.

n   “You shall have no other gods before me” (Exodus 20:3).

n   “Love the Lord your God with…..(Mark 12:30).

n   The major factor in our failure to love, worship and obey God is unbelief (Erickson).

Terms emphasising the cause of sin:

l   Ignorance: Some things done in ignorance were apparently innocent in the sight of God, or at least he overlooked them (Acts 17:30). Yet at other points ignorant actions seem to be culpable (Ephesians 4:18). The source of evil cannot be confined to ignorance. The root of evil is a mystery to us. If it’s reason or rational, then the solution should be reason or rational.

l   Error: More abundant are references to sin as error, the human tendency to go astray, to make mistakes. The primary terms in the OT is used of sheep that stray from the flock (Ezekiel 34:6). The term in the NT emphasizes the cause of one’s going astray as a result of being deceived.

l   Inattention: “To hear amiss or incorrectly.” “refuse to listen”. Failure to listen and heed when God is speaking, or disobedience following upon failure to hear right.

Terms emphasising the character of sin:

l   Missing the mark: Failure to hit the mark God has set, His standard, of perfect love of God and perfect obedience to Him.

l   Irreligion: Impiety.

l   Transgression: “To cross over” or “to pass by”. Transgressing a command or going beyond an established limit.

l   Iniquity or lack of integrity: The idea of injustice, failure to fulfil the standard of righteousness, or lack of integrity.

l   Rebellion: Often translated “transgress,” but the root meaning is “to rebel”.

l   Treachery: Breach of trust or treachery.

l   Perversion: “To bend or twist”.

l   Abomination: An act particularly reprehensible to God, such as idolatry (Deut 7:25-26), homosexuality (Lev 18:22; 20:13), wearing clothes of the opposite gender (Deut 22:5), sacrificing sons and daughters (Deut 12:30) or blemished animals (Deut 17:1), and witchcraft (Deut 18:9-12).

Terms emphasising the results of sin:

l   Agitation or restlessness: The original word resha’ is usually translated as “wickedness” but suggests the concept of tossing and restlessness.

l   Evil or badness: The word ra’ means evil in the sense of badness. It can refer to anything that is harmful or malignant, not merely the moral evil. It can be used of food that has gone bad or a dangerous animal.

l   Guilt: To do a wrong, the perpetrator ought to be punished or the victum compensated, “sin offering”.

l   Trouble

Potential areas for temptation and sin:

l   The desire to enjoy things.

l   The desire to obtain things.

l   The desire to do things, to achieve. Assessing someone’s worth on their achievements.

Results affecting the relationship with God, Genesis 3: Adam and Eve didn’t know sin but committed sin.

l   Divine disfavour: OT frequently describes those who sin and violate God’s laws as enemies of God. NT focus on the enmity and hatred of unbelievers and the world toward God and his people. Although God is not the enemy of sinners nor does he hate them, it is also quite clear that God is angered/disappointed by sin.

l   Guilt: Shame produces guilt, fear and a sense of stain. They tried to cover up, but the thick leaves are not going to cover up the stain in their nature. Guilt comes after there is an accusation. “Adam, where are you”: where are you in relationship to me, rather than where you are physically.

l   Punishment

l   Death

Effects on the sinner:

l   Enslavement: No one is free as far as you are a human being. Human beings as horses: you can either have Holy Spirit ride on you or the devil ride on you! Sin becomes a habit or even an addiction. One sin leads to another sin.

l   Flight from reality: Avoiding reality through positive language, eg. passes away instead of died, memorial parks instead of graveyards.

l   Denial of sin: Sin is relabelled, so that it is not acknowledged as sin at all. Or to admit the wrongness of our actions but decline to take responsibility for them.

l   Self-deceit: This is the most powerful type of effect. Jeremiah 17:9, “The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure.

l   Insensitivity: As we continue to sin and to reject God’s warnings and condemnations, we become less and less responsive to the promptings of conscience. A shell, a spiritual callous.

l   Self-centeredness: We display a certain special alertness to our own wants and needs, while we ignore those of others.

l   Restlessness: There is an insatiable character about sin. Complete satisfaction never occurs.

Effect on the relationship with other humans

l   Competition: Increasing self-centredness and self-seeking, inevitably conflict with others. Whenever someone wins, someone else loses. The loser, out of resentment, will often become a threat to the winner. The person who succeeds will always shave the anxiety that others may attempt to take back what they have lost.

l   Inability to empathize: Being concerned about our personal desires, reputation, and opinions, we see only our own perspective.

l   Rejection of authority: A social ramification of sin. If we find security in our own possessions and accomplishments, then any outside authority is threatening. Since it restricts our doing what we want, it must be resisted or ignored.

l   Inability to love: Since other people stand in our way, representing competition and a threat to us, we cannot really act for the ultimate welfare of others if our aim is self-satisfaction.

Resources:

Erikson, Millard J. Christian Theology.

Whether self-love is the source of every sin?

Objection 1. It would seem that self-love is not the source of every sin. For that which is good and right in itself is not the proper cause of sin. Now love of self is a good and right thing in itself: wherefore man is commanded to love his neighbor as himself (Leviticus 19:18). Therefore self-love cannot be the proper cause of sin.

Objection 2. Further, the Apostle says (Romans 7:8): "Sin taking occasion by the commandment wrought in me all manner of concupiscence"; on which words a gloss says that "the law is good, since by forbidding concupiscence, it forbids all evils," the reason for which is that concupiscence is the cause of every sin. Now concupiscence is a distinct passion from love, as stated above (3, 2; 23, 4). Therefore self-love is not the cause of every sin.

Objection 3. Further, Augustine in commenting on Psalm 79:17, "Things set on fire and dug down," says that "every sin is due either to love arousing us to undue ardor or to fear inducing false humility." Therefore self-love is not the only cause of sin.

Objection 4. Further, as man sins at times through inordinate love of self, so does he sometimes through inordinate love of his neighbor. Therefore self-love is not the cause of every sin.

On the contrary, Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiv, 28) that "self-love, amounting to contempt of God, builds up the city of Babylon." Now every sin makes man a citizen of Babylon. Therefore self-love is the cause of every sin.

I answer that, As stated above (Question 75, Article 1), the proper and direct cause of sin is to be considered on the part of the adherence to a mutable good; in which respect every sinful act proceeds from inordinate desire for some temporal good. Now the fact that anyone desires a temporal good inordinately, is due to the fact that he loves himself inordinately; for to wish anyone some good is to love him. Therefore it is evident that inordinate love of self is the cause of every sin.

Reply to Objection 1. Well ordered self-love, whereby man desires a fitting good for himself, is right and natural; but it is inordinate self-love, leading to contempt of God, that Augustine (De Civ. Dei xiv, 28) reckons to be the cause of sin.

We want to love people. Augustine says it’s not proper love if it’s not from God. But if you go to your spouse and say “I love you out of my love for God”, it might not sound very impressive. We have preconceived notion of what is love and what love from God is, and if it goes against our notion, we disagree with it. Whatever is God is love. God is the source of love. When it says we should deny ourselves, it’s denial of your selfish self, not your whole person. Self-affirming love, not self-effacing love. Pride and self-love is inordinate love.

Reply to Objection 2. Concupiscence, whereby a man desires good for himself, is reduced to self-love as to its cause, as stated.

Reply to Objection 3. Man is said to love both the good he desires for himself, and himself to whom he desires it. Love, in so far as it is directed to the object of desire (e.g. a man is said to love wine or money) admits, as its cause, fear which pertains to avoidance of evil: for every sin arises either from inordinate desire for some good, or from inordinate avoidance of some evil. But each of these is reduced to self-love, since it is through loving himself that man either desires good things, or avoids evil things.

Reply to Objection 4. A friend is like another self (Ethic. ix): wherefore the sin which is committed through love for a friend, seems to be committed through self-love.

If I am filled with love for someone and I am changed by this relationship, then it will impact on my relationship with others. Relationship is a power. A child with distorted relationship with his/her parents will have distorted relationships with others until he/she is healed. The Spirit of God is love. Everything I love, I should love out of my love for God. Loving myself out of the context of our love for God is an inordinate way of love. Love God, then you will be able to love yourself, and love others. We are made in God’s image so even when we look at our enemies, we are looking at God, even though it is a distorted image of God. Love is radically relationally structured. Love: It is so that we might gain a community.

Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica 2.77.4; accessed electronically at http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2077.htm#article4

 

Additional notes on sin, from TH602 Miyon Chung's class S1 2016:

Sin can be seen as the misuse of freedom.

After sin, everything suffers from disharmony.

Pelagius’ view is optimistic: Sees everyone as having a fresh start as Adam did, and that sin is moral.

Augustine: Sin is in nature.

What happened to this country 50 years ago impacts us today and we can’t change it. Our parents’ shortcomings impact us and our shortcomings impact our children. Unless work is done to recover. Recovery cannot lead one back to the point where it has never happened, but gives us a bigger capacity as a person.

The cross is the wisdom of God. It shows us freedom. On the cross, God was for me, not against me. Freedom to participate in God’s reconciling works. A relational freedom we can learn from the cross. Self-sacrifice is a means to the end. We use selfish means to gain relationship: to gain something for me, or for my children. On the cross, God sacrificed Himself to gain relationship for the others. The source of sin using one word: stain. It is in all cultures, where all tried to offer sacrifices to purge their sins/ gain favour from their gods. Shame. Fear: the kind of fear that drives us away from God and relationships, making us hide from God.

Adam was naïve. He was content w/o a partner but God suggested it and then he recognises it. So he chooses not to refuse Eve when Eve gave him the fruit: to protect his relationship with Eve.

Temptation is the ability to tell between a mandarin and an orange, not a mandarin and a strawberry.

Sin is systemic. It is greater than all of the actions we have committed. I am not responsible for the sins of our forefathers, but I suffer from the evil fruits from my nation. Sin is thorough and universal. Those of us who live in a more peaceful and economically well off countries have a greater responsibility towards the marginalised and unreached. God advocates the rights and wellbeing of the poor and the marginalised. We either stand with God or against God for this. It’s an obligation, not an option.

Japan’s reconciliation with the other countries: although the current generation are not responsible for the war crimes, but they need to address their wrongdoings in their history textbooks. Victims will keep crying out telling their stories until they are satisfied.

Why did Jesus have to die? Atonement theories

C.S. Lewis think the theory as to what the point of this dying was is not so important (C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity)

l   The central Christian belief is that Christ’s death has somehow put us right with God and given us a fresh start. Theories as to how it did this did not matter.

l   All sensible people know that if you are tired and hungry a meal will do you no good. But the modern theory of nourishment, all about the vitamins and proteins, is a different thing.

l   A man can eat his dinner without understanding exactly how food nourishes him. A man can accept what Christ has done without knowing how it works: indeed, he certainly would not know how it works until he has accepted it.

l   We are told that Christ was killed for us, that His death has washed out our sins, and that by dying He disabled death itself. That is the formula. That is Christianity. That is what has to be believed. Any theories we build up as to how Christ’s death did this all are, in my view, quite secondary: mere plans or diagrams to be left alone if they do not help us, and, even if they do help us, not to be confused with the thing itself.

l   Laying down your arms, surrendering, saying you are sorry, realising that you have been on the wrong track and getting ready to start life over again from the ground floor: that is the only way out of our “hole”. This is repentance: unlearning all the self-conceit and self-will, killing part of yourself.

l   Some complain that if Jesus was God as well as man, then His sufferings and death lose all value in their eyes, “because it must have been so easy for Him.”

l   The perfect submission, the perfect suffering, the perfect death were not only easier to Jesus because He was God, but were possible only because He was God. If I am drowning in a rapid river, a man who still has one foot on the bank may give me a hand which saves my life. Ought I to shout back, “No, it’s not fair! You have an advantage! You’re keeping one foot on the bank”?

Importance

l   Augustine said, “I believe, in order to understand; and I understand, the better to believe.” Reason puts man on road toward God, and faith informs and elevates reason. http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/augustine’s-confessions-and-the-harmony-of-faith-and-reason

l   My personal thought in response to C.S. Lewis’ analogy of how a man can eat his dinner without understanding exactly how food nourishes him: Well, he certainly would not know how it works until he has accepted it. So if he’s been eating junk food consistently, he will gradually know how it works when his health and weight starts to suffer! We may not need to think too much about “how it works” when we receive Christ, but if we don’t seek understanding and accept heretic doctrines, we will deviate from the truth!

l   There is a wide range of ideas, but there is no one theory that fully explains everything.

l   It is important to construct a coherent and viable formulation of each particular theory.

l   It is important to determine the viability of these theories of atonement for the life and work of the church today.

Classifications (Schmiechen)	Representative theories
Christ died for us: Sin, the moral life, and the impact of sin on the relation of humanity to God.	1Sacrifice 2Justification by grace 3Penal substitution
Liberation from sin, death, and demonic powers: Also concerned with sin, but expands the problem to include the powers of evil, death and Satan	The major revival in the last part of the twentieth century.
The purposes of God: God and God’s eternal purpose. Something new is happening that far exceeds the forgiveness of sins. Primarily concerned about the new life Christ brings. The story of Jesus is about God and God’s divine intentions for the world.	1The renewal of the creation 2The restoration of the creation 3Christ and the goal of creation
Reconciliation: Restoration of the true knowledge of God. Reconciliation between conflicted groups. Jesus is the Reconciler creating unity and peace.	1Christ the way to the knowledge of God 2Christ the reconciler 3The wondrous love of God

The Story of Atonement (Sykes)

The Christian narrative:

l   Setting: God’s world

l   Theme: The rescue of the fallen world and of humankind from destruction

l   Plots: The biblical narratives, from creation and election, to incarnation, crucifixion, resurrection and ascension.

l   Resolution: The last judgment, heaven and hell, and the new creation.

Four idea-complexes:

l   Obedience: Contrasting Adam’s disobedience with the perfect obedience of the second Adam

l   Slavery: Relating to redemption and setting free. Slavery is the metaphor for the consequence of sin.

l   Judgement: Relating to condemnation and acquittal.

l   Cultic: A symbolic event. Relating to sacrifice. Passover lamb, the blood of Jesus, the sinless offering, a substitute goat. Jesus is not simply an innocent and uncomprehending victim. He understands and accepts what is happening.

From this we see a plurality of narratives for atonement. Sykes separates out two groups of narratives:

l   The leading agent is God the Father, who out of love for the world and humanity, provides and puts forward nothing less than his very own substance (his only son) as the final remedy for sin (Mark 12). Understanding of atonement: God’s grace in not allowing humankind simply to reap the full consequence of sin.

l   Jesus, the Son of God, gives himself out of love for humanity, and does so freely and without compulsion. This is the narratives of the Synoptic Gospels. Understanding of atonement: Jesus’ own self-offering. Freely subordinates his own will to the will of his heavenly Father.

l   Our instinct is to empathise with the second.

Satan’s power over us

Temptation:

l   Seductive temptation: Satan’s ability to lead men and women astray and to make them so unlike their Creator, so ungodly. This is a major aspect of his efficacy as the enemy of God and God’s holy law.

l   Deception: “father of lies” (John 8:44). False doctrines in the churches. Sham version of Christianity: outward form of godliness while denying what gives it strength (2Timothy 3:5).

l   Believing the lie further blinds individuals who can no longer recognise the true shape of things. The lies of seduction, to which the lies of self-justification are soon combined, grow into the symbolic system of a culture.

l   Many afflictions result from actions that have been inspired by the devil as Tempter: either the self-destructive consequence of a person’s own transgressions or the effects of the work of evildoers in aggression, dishonesty, persecution.

l   Temptation is suggestion. It requires, in order to succeed, to find what it cannot create: the formally free consent of the human person.

Accusation:

l   Satan is called the Accuser/adversary.

l   Luke 22:31: Satan’s aim in “sifting” the apostles is probably to charge them with unworthiness and inadequacy before God.

l   If Satan’s opposition to the Lord were a matter of mere power, the rebel’s finite resources would equal zero when confronted with infinity, but his force resides in the rightness of his accusation.

l   The devil holds the power inasmuch as he seduces into deadly ways those who lack judgement, and he secures their condemnation as the prosecutor of human kind. Using the force of law, he demands successfully that they die.

l   The law of God, precisely because it is good and holy, separates us, condemned sinners, from our good and holy God, and we fall prey to agencies of wickedness.

Victory over evil, the evil is dealt with by (Pugh):

l   Undoing its basis: The patristic theories understand man as having come under the authority of the devil. A ransom is paid to buy off the devil’s claims.

l   Nonviolently resisting it: The feminist take on the patristic theory that takes note of the way in which the devil is overcome in the ransom theory. He is not overcome by force.

l   Taking power from it: The Word of Faith. Shares the fundamental patristic starting point, that human surrendered their authority to the devil at the fall. The cross and resurrection are construed as a dethroning of the devil and an enthronement of born-again man.

Atonement Theories

Theory	Author	Emphases	Presuppositions	Critique	Remarks
Ransom or Classic/ Dramatic (victory over the forces of evil)	Irenaeus early 2nd century –202	1Recapitulation theory of atonement: Sees the atonement of Christ as reversing the course of mankind from disobedience to obedience. 2The death of Christ as a ransom by which God "justly liberated" human beings from Satan's captivity.	It was appropriate that God should obtain what he wished through persuasion, not by the use of force, so that the principles of justice might not be infringed, and at the same time, that God's original creation might not perish.		1Only tentatively introduced the idea that the ransom was in fact paid to the devil. 2Did not emphasise the idea that the devil had any legitimate rights over humans.
	Origen 185-254	1Humans are ransomed (Mk1045) from Satan with Christ’s blood. 2Satan released humanity, only to find he couldn’t hold Christ in his resurrection (Satan miscalculated the ransom bargain through self-deception).	1If we were bought, the price would have been paid to the one who held us captive–Satan. 2Humanity’s problem: enslavement to an unfit owner - Satan.	1Anselm: Satan, being himself a rebel and outlaw, could never have a just claim against human beings. 2The Catholic Encyclopedia calls the idea that God must pay the Devil a ransom "certainly startling, if not revolting."	1Mark 10:45 uses the word ransom. 2Dominant until Abelard. “Dramatic theory” - Origen spoke of the cosmic drama involving heavenly powers.
	Athanasius 318	It is only by taking on a real human body, capable of dying, that God was able to redeem fallen human nature.	The Word takes on a body capable of death in order that this body might be worthy to die instead for all humanity, and remain incorruptible through the indwelling Word, and thus put an end to corruption through the grace of his resurrection.
	Gregory of Nyssa C4	1Satan was deceived by God, thinking that Christ, weakened in his humiliation, would become his. 2Satan deserved to be deceived–after all, he had once deceived humanity.	1Justice required that an appropriate price be arranged with the owner of sinners–Satan. Force was not appropriate. 2The end effectively justified the means. Moreover, God’s motivation was love.	1The idea of a deception surrounding the death of Christ. 2Dualistic mindset that accorded considerable power to the devil. 3Emphasises the costliness of salvation. 4Speaks about salvation from sin, not merely salvation from its penal consequences.	“the hook of deity gulped down along with the bait of flesh” cf. *Gregory the Gt (C6) Jb411 - re atonement? *Augustine (C4) - cross is like a mouse trap, with the blood as the bait. God only permitted the deception.
Victory (closely related to ransom/ dramatic theory)	Aulén 1930	1Commonly expressed in various atonement theories composed by the patristics, portraying a heavenly battle between God and the devil. 2Christ’s death defeated Satan and made human freedom possible. Christ himself was undefeated, passing to new life via resurrection. 3Note verses like 1Jn38; 519; Jn1231; 2Tim110; Rom79; Heb.214	1Humans at the time of the fall have delivered themselves into the hands of the devil, who now rightly owned them. 2Humans are held by various forces: flesh, sin, the Law, death; with the powers of evil ruling over the world. 3Only a suitable substitute or price paid on behalf of the enslaved humans can release them from the devil's rightful dominion/domination. 4NT statements that appear to teach satisfaction are to be understood in terms of the victory motif. 5Assumes that the classic view of victory is the only truly biblical view - tends to ignore or distort other views.	1Correct in what it affirms (the victory, struggle and cost involved in the atonement), but inadequate in its omissions. 2Fails to explain how the victory over sin, death and Satan is achieved. 3 Aulen’s contrast (pp.95-96) between the ‘legalistic’ basis of OT forgiveness and the ‘sovereign Divine Love’ of the NT has a Marcionite tendency. 4Not taking into account “the human and even tragic elements in the story”. 5Give the Devil certain rights over humans. 6Involves battle in the heavenly realms that hardly impacts us as humans.	1Christus Victor (1930). See reading from H.D. McDonald, 258-65. 2See also H. Blocher, ‘Agnus Victor…’ in Stackhouse (ed.) What does it mean to be saved? pp.67-91. 3The focus of the modern version is on the recognition of the evil and God’s victory over them in and through the cross of Christ, rather than on the hold that the devil or Satan has over humans.
Non-Violent Atonement	J. Denny Weaver	1Jesus’ death was caused by his opponents. Nonviolently resisting evil. 2God the Father did not require his death 3The victory of the atonement comes in the resurrection, not the death of Jesus. 4God forgives sinners gratuitously.	1Nothing in God requires Jesus’ death: not satisfaction of honour or a legal requirement. 2Satan stands for the forces of oppression in the world, opposed to God. 3Forgiveness is simply given by God. Justice is not an issue.	1 Absolutises the Anabaptist distinctive of non-violence 2 Underplays or ignores Biblical references to the predestining of Jesus’ death (e.g., Acts 2.23; 1 Pet 1.20), the wrath of God and the death of Jesus as a judicial/penal event	2001 The Non-Violent Atonement; see http://www.crosscurrents.org/weaver0701.htm Traces the further development of the Christus Victor theory into the liberation theology of South America, as well as feminist and black theologies of liberation.
	Walter Wink	Portrayed the Christus Victor as a nonviolent theory of atonement that unmasks systemic evil.	The effect of this unmasking disseminates across the world, re-sensitising humanity to its own propensities towards this kind of evil.
Satisfaction	Anselm 1033-1109	1Satisfaction is made by Christ, to satisfy a principle in the very nature of God the Father, God’s justice. 2Satisfaction couldn’t be made by humans, who at best, can only give God his due. 3Defeat of the devil was also necessary-impossible for humans to achieve. 4Only God could make the satisfaction required and only a human could make satisfaction for humanity, doing what was fitting: so God became human. 5Christ honoured God fully, as required in his life; in his death he performed a work of supererogation (i.e., he gave more than was required). The excess is put to the account of humanity. 6Did not involve any sort of payment to Satan. Emphasis on compensation to the Father; formulated against the backdrop of European medieval penal system	1 God is to humanity as a feudal lord, whose honour has been offended. 2Adequate satisfaction was essential. 3 Sin = failure to give God his due. Sin left unpunished would leave God’s economy out of order. 4 God has not only been deprived of what was his due, but he has also been dishonoured.	1 Christ’s death as a work of supererogation is not a biblical idea. 2 Anselm has been criticised for his use of concepts tied to his context and culture (satisfaction, honour, etc). Whether the feudal framework of Anselm has some affinities with the honour/shame dimensions of the Biblical texts and with the Biblical picture of God’s concern for the glory of his name. Referenced to God's honour rather than his justice and holiness.	Espoused by the Roman Catholic Church.
Penal substitution (Punished/ penalised in place of sinners/ substitution)	Calvin 1509-64	1The mediator had to swallow death and conquer sin, \ the redeemer had to be life and righteousness (& \ God. 2God cannot suffer and die, and humans cannot conquer death. The human and divine meet in the redeemer. God gave himself in the person of his Son. 3The Mediator is Christ (anointed) – prophet, priest and king. 4God’s love is the ground of the atonement (Ro. 58,10, Jn 816. 5Christ endured death for us. (“incomprehensible judgment”) 6Emphasises the resurrection in connection with Christ’s victory. 7Combines sacrifice (which propitiates God who both loves us and shows wrath toward us) and the forensic category of penal substitution.	1The purpose of the incarnation was to propitiate a holy God. 2The priest and the victim are the same. 3Humans are depraved in nature and conduct, attracting God’s wrath. 4Christ’s life of obedience, teaching, death, resurrection and ascension are all important. 5The power & efficacy of the cross are dependent on the resurrection. “Christ, in his death, was offered to the Father as a propitiatory victim.” (Institutes II.xvi.6) the guilt and penalty of our sin was laid on Christ \ it is no longer imputed to us.	1 Takes both God’s love and God’s justice seriously 2 Strong Biblical foundations (though some critics argue otherwise, eg. that OT sacrifices are solely about expiation and not propitiatory or penal). 3 Central and foundational in the Bible’s account of the work of Christ, but not the totality; underpins and is complemented by accounts of the cross as victory and moral influence. 4 Some versions of Penal substitution fail to emphasise the unity of the three Trinitarian persons in the wrath of God against sin and in the love of God that propitiates God’s wrath. 5 Some versions of penal substitution fail to emphasise the representative underpinnings of Christ’s substitutionary death.	See Institutes, Book II Critiques and responses: See Erickson, 833-836, and notes.                                      Extension of Anselm's Satisfaction theory which Reformers saw as insufficient because it was referenced to God's honour rather than his justice and holiness and was couched more in terms of a commercial transaction than a penal substitution.
Penalty and Victory	Luther 1483-1546	1 Christ’s death is victory over sin, death, Satan and the law-wrath of God. 2 Humanity, led into disobedience by Satan, is under God’s wrath. 3 Used imagery of the bait of Christ’s humanity and hook of deity.	1The divine law expresses God’s essential justice. God must punish transgressors to be true to His nature. 2Humans cannot remove their guilt, while God cannot just forgive. 3Law and gospel produce in man a “dualistic struggle” that resolves in “despairing utterly in self and believing absolutely in Christ”.		The penal view is the dominant one in Luther.
Moral-Influence Theory (Demonstration of God’s love)	Abelard 1079-1142	1 Jesus’ death shows God’s love for us. 2 Jn 15:13 3 God’s love in Christ arouses an answering love in humans for God. The purpose and result of Christ's death was to influence mankind toward moral improvement	1 People’s fear and ignorance of God needed rectifying. 2 Christ’s death primarily affects humans, not God. 3 Humankind doesn’t share in Adam’s guilt.  4 People have tendencies to good as well as evil. 5 God can freely forgive.	1Defective view of sin.	Formulated by Peter Abelard (1079-1142) partially in reaction against Anselm’s Satisfaction theory
	Schleiermacher 1768-1834	1 Christ’s total obedience (active and passive) results in our being assumed (being moved) to dependence. 2 Christ is our exemplary representative, not our vicarious satisfaction (substitute).	1 The Redeemer is like all humans but differs in “the constant potency of his God-consciousness, which was a veritable existence of God in Him”. 2He assumes believers into the power of his God-consciousness 3Reacted against the idea of divine wrath resting on Christ. Denies that Christ died to satisfy any principle of divine justice.	1 Inadequate conception of God - unduly subjective, based on human self-consciousness. Minimises such qualities as justice, holiness, and righteousness. 2 Humankind needs forgiveness as much as a greater God-consciousness
	Ritschl 1822-1889	The Declaratory Theory: Christ died to show men how greatly God loves them.	1 Christ is a human who can be called God because of his vocation. 2 Christ achieves redemption (community formation) by being the perfect revelation of God. 3 Christ’s death awakens our love.	1 Sub-biblical Christology and doctrine of sin.
Vicarious Confession or Penitence	J. McLeod Campbell	1A perfect repentance is sufficient to atone for sin. 2 In his death, Christ entered into the Father's condemnation of sin, condemned sin, and by this, confessed it. 3The atonement produces in us the spirit of sonship.	1Rejected substitutionary and penal view. 2A repentance equivalent to the sin committed would atone for sin (cf. Phineas in Numbers 25)		Scottish theologian. An objective view, in that the atonement means something to God. Also akin to subjective views, like the Moral Influence Theory.
Governmental Theory	Grotius 1583-1645	1 The role of God here is as a ruler rather than as a creditor or a master. 2Jesus’ death is a nominal, not a real, satisfaction of God’s judgment. Christ was not punished on behalf of the human race. His death actually paid the penalty for no man's sin. 3The atonement was necessary in the interests of good government in the world.	1God is a God of law. He can relax any law he has made. 2God is Ruler, so sin is not an attack on a private individual, but on the Ruler. 3God loves. 4God always acts in the interests of good government.	1God is Ruler of the world (but can God simply relax his laws?) 2Claims to deal with the satisfaction of divine justice (adequately?) 3Is it valid to say that the goal of Christ’s death was good government?

Argument for nonviolent atonement (Weaver)

http://www.crosscurrents.org/weaver0701.htm

Atonement theory involves 3 targets: God, Satan, sinful mankind

Question: Why Jesus died for us?

	Theory	Targets/objects	Who ultimately killed Jesus
Christus Victor	Ransom	Devil	Devil
	Cosmic battle	Devil	Devil
Atonement	Satisfaction: Catholic	God’s honour	God
	Penal substitution: Protestant	God’s law	God
	Moral influence	Us	God

In response to “Who needs the death of Jesus?”, Weaver offers narrative Christus Victor as both nonviolent atonement and narrative Christology: The death of Jesus is not a divine requirement. The rule of the devil attempts to rule by violence and death, whereas the rule of God rules and ultimately conquers by nonviolence.

Objections to penal substitution

1.        Misunderstands the Bible

l   It rests on unbiblical ideas of sacrifice, of the ancient pagan religions.

Response:

l   OT sacrificial imagery and atonement language may not only be about averting divine wrath and enduring punishment/death in place of another, but those elements are certainly present as a crucial part of the picture in numerous important texts, and in the larger salvation-historical narrative. 

l   OT rituals form much of the biblical background to the NT teaching about Christ’s sacrificial death were radically different from many of the pagan practices of other ANE peoples. God’s anger is not the volatile and erratic caprice of pagan deities: “It is never unpredictable, but always predictable, because it is provoked by evil and evil alone.”

2.        “Cosmic child abuse”

l   A vengeful Father, punishing his Son for an office he has not even committed.

Response:

l   Jesus willingly went to his death. “I lay down my life”. Child abuse involves an unwilling victum, unable to understand fully what is happening.

l   Jesus died to bring glory to himself, to save his people, and to glorify his Father. Child abuse is solely for the gratification of the abuser.

l   God was working through human agents, such as those who conspired against Jesus, to accomplish his purposes.

l   God foresaw, planned and was in full control of the death of Christ.

3.        Distortion of the Nature of God: Incompatible with the love of God/hypocrisy

l   “be perfect… as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matthew 5:48). If the cross is a personal act of violence perpetrated by God towards humankind but born by his Son, then it makes a mockery of Jesus’ own teaching to love your enemies and to refuse to repay evil with evil.

l   The most profound theological truth expressed in Scripture is “God is love” (1 John 4:8).

l   “I don’t judge you. I leave that to a wrathful, angry God to do,” thunders Ned Flanders to Homer Simpson.

l   “A divine paradox”: On the one hand, Christians believe in God’s grace and goodness, but on the other, they believe that one of the central acts of their faith is bound up in his vengeance and wrath.

Response:

l   The Bible never makes assertions about God’s anger, power or judgment independently of his love. God’s anger is an aspect of his love, and to understand it any differently is to misunderstand it.

l   In light of our understanding of God as the perfect father we begin to see the objects of his burning anger are not his beloved children but the evils, attitudes and behaviours that ensnare and seek to destroy them.

l   The NT speaks of the sacrifice that takes away the wrath of God as one that was itself motivated by God’s own love, and provided at cost to God himself (not just the Son). 

l   Wrath in humans is sinful because of human nature. Divine wrath in God is not sinful because God does not have sin.

l   The Bible does not urge us to imitate all of God’s actions or every aspect of his character. We are urged to avoid some things precisely because God uniquely has the right to them, eg. The first and second commandants forbid a person from setting himself up as a deity to be worshipped. We should not take revenge, not because retribution is inherently wrong, but because it rests with God.

4.        Penal substitution legitimates violence

l   Reciprocal violence is a vicious circle, a downward spiral. Hatred and suspicion breed hatred and suspicion.

l   If the church could not rediscover a deeper understanding of the cross, the society can get caught in the grip of the lie that violence can be redemptive. Penal substitution distorts God with its inbuilt belief in retribution and the redemptive power of violence.

l   The ethic of nonviolence or “assertive meekness” demonstrated by Christ.

l   Will our Christ-centred faith be part of the word’s answer or part of its problem?

Response:

l   Penal substitution certainly presupposes the validity and legitimacy of the exercise of punitive force (within the constraints of justice). But not all force is ‘violence’; the Bible reserves the use of the vocabulary of ‘violence’ for uses of force that are predatory, anarchic or disproportionately vindictive.

l   The objections display a deficient understanding of the OT sacrificial system, seeing sacrifice as a symptom of a violent and socially dysfunctional society rather than as God’s appointed means to atone for the sin of his people. In the OT, it is ‘organised violence in the service of social tranquillity.”

l   There are important differences between the death of Jesus and other acts of violence perpetrated by sinful human beings against each other and against God.

5.        Unjust transference of guilt/punishment

l   Suppose that a judge, upon finding a defendant guilty, proceeds to punish not the defendant, but an innocent party. Would this not be improper?

Response:

l   If the one who bore our punishment in our place was a third party, disconnected from both God and humanity, that could certainly be said to be the case. But the one who bears our punishment is the divine Son – the forgiver bearing the cost of the forgiveness – and the representative human, to whom his people are united by faith. The one who provides the payment is the same one who requires it. The Father did not place the punishment on someone other than himself:he is both the judge and the person paying the penalty. Human scenarios where one person is punished in place of another are at best very imperfect analogies for what takes place on the cross.

6.        Fails to resonate with the culture we live in

l   The whole idea of a vengeful God is offensive to persons today.

Response:

l   That doesn’t mean we are to abandon the doctrine; it just means we need to work harder in showing and explaining those concepts for our culture as we explain the meaning of the death of Christ.

7.        Divides the Trinity

Response:

l   The work of God in salvation is an act of the whole Trinity. Certainly there are distinctions between the particular parts that the Father, the Son and the Spirit play in the work of atonement. But there is still a perfect concurrence in which the Son and the Spirit are wholly at one with the Father in his wrath against Sin (e.g. Matt 3:11-12, Rev 6:16), and the death of the Son is endured not only by the Son but also by the Father and the Spirit (cf. Rom 3:24-26, 5:1-8, 8:32, John 3:16).  

Definitions:

Propitiation: offering a sacrifice to appease God’s wrath.

Expiation: wiping out our sin, because of Jesus. This is used for the translation of Romans 3:25.

References:

Blocher, Agnus Victor from What does it mean to be Saved

Chalke, Redemption of the Cross, from the Atonement Debate

Chung, Miyon. “Penal substitution and Victory theories” Lecture Notes, Morling College, October 11, 2016.

C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

Pugh, Atonement Theories

Schmiechen, Atonement Theories

Sykes, The Story of Atonement

http://www.theopedia.com/atonement-of-christ

http://www.crosscurrents.org/weaver0701.htm

http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/augustine%E2%80%99s-confessions-and-the-harmony-of-faith-and-reason