Continued from The Extent of Atonement.

So, if atonement is not universal, it reduces the efficacy of Christ’s sacrifice. But if atonement is universal, it nullifies its necessity. The solution may be to see the cross as something other than an atonement. We must find something that keeps the efficacy of Christ sacrifice, yet maintains its necessity universally. There are two other perspectives on the cross which I think are worth investigating, both describing the cross as an event which objectively changed  life for mankind.

The first is theosis. I’ve written on theosis before. Irenaeus described the concept so: “the Word of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, who did, through his transcendent love, become what we are, that He might bring us to be even what He is Himself.” In this view of the cross, Christ’s sacrifice changed human nature in such a way that it can now become Christ-like, that is, like God. I like the concept of theosis in general, as an addition to any Christian theology. But as an alternative to atonement, the truth is I don’t understand exactly how the cross in particular changes human nature in this way. If this change is due to Christ living a human life in full, from birth to death, then I don’t understand the significance of the cross. Even if the significance is in the resurrection, the cross itself does not seem necessary. If some kind of sacrifice or offering is necessary for us to become like Christ, I do not see how this is any different from any of the ’satisfaction’ atonements. Whilst enabling deification is would surely be an effective use of Christ’s sacrifice, I just can’t see how it can stand alone in explaining the necessity of that sacrifice.

The second is the Girardian perspective, which is based on the socio-religious theories of Rene Girard. According to Girard, society is built on a foundation of imitation. We copy behaviour, innovations, learn information, allowing humans to thrive. But just as the ‘good’ is contagious, so is the bad: Jealousy, envy, stigma, hate. And this can quickly rise to become violence. This violence manifests itself, naturally, when society is placed under the stress of famine, war, or drought. People become fearful, mistrusting and suspicious, and these feelings escalate to ever-increasing violence (given in imitative nature of society); Does society collapses under the force of unchecked revenge killing? No, because all societies that survived found a solution. The blame for the stressor falls on a certain person or minority; these voiceless, marginal people are blamed, and this blame – like everything else – is contagious. Eventually, the community is unanimous: The group is reunited again, against this common foe. Instead of violence of all against all, the violence is brought upon the one to save the many. In the wake of this sacrifice, the peace returns, and the group is unified.

The sad thing is that this works: It unifies the community. But it does so under the condition that this dirty secret remain hidden, because if all new the scapegoat were innocent, the group would lose its unity. And this mechanism, according to Girard sacrificing the scapegoat for the sake of the community, is the basis of religion and myth. This is why religious texts are so full of bloodshed and dehumanised enemies: Because they exist to propagate religious myths that hide the truth of the scapegoat. But surely not our religious text? Well, actually, yes. The Old Testament – especially Joshua and Judges, but throughout – very clearly show this mechanism. But with one difference: In the Old Testament, the victims are often given voice. In this way, the Old Testament is somewhat an antimyth: Over its length, it gradually reveals the truth about the scapegoating mechanism.

So how does all this relate to the cross? Jesus was such a scapegoat. However, Christ rose from the dead, and hence was vindicated: He was innocent, and more, he was God! Something changed in humanity; they became aware of their violent tendencies. The scapegoat cycle, although it still exists, is now visible, and hence, is loses its ability to work successfully. Through his death on the cross, and rising to new life, Jesus saves us from our sin, and that sin is a specific one: That part of the human condition that sacrifices the victim for the sake of the community. The cross was a way to unmask the scapegoating mechanism.

This is one way that the cross can be efficacious, and yet still be necessary. It is one simple thing that changes the world. The victimisation we find distasteful, in the Old Testament, and in the Sacrifice of the Cross, contemporaries never found the same. Why? Because the cross changed us. The fact that we can see the victims in these stories, that we question, is proof that we have be converted by the Gospel. We associate ourselves with the victim. The fact that I am dissatisfied by atonement, tells me that I have be converted by the cross.

To me, the Girardian perspective is the most satisfying conclusion. However it does not feel like a complete conclusion. Perhaps if we combined this with the Orthodox concept of theosis, it would be more complete? Or with the Governmental theory of atonement? The main problem with Girardian perspective is that it is relatively new. I’m not convinced that tradition or the early church interpreted the Gospel in this way.

I’ll conclude the series tomorrow, with how all of this comes together.