Right as I was beginning this writing project in late February, I was in the library returning some books at a local seminary and on the periodical wall I saw a big bold cover article for the magazine called The Christian Century: "God does not require Blood." It was the February 10 issue. I skimmed the article, but I was kind of in a hurry and thought I can read the article again online later. Unfortunately I can't find it on-line, but if I remember correctly, the main jist of the article was that the author, Mr. Daniel Bell, disagreed with the idea that God demands the shedding of blood to justify sinners. He said that that doctrine promotes the idea of redemptive violence, so that Christians today are too willing to ask violence to problems because they see that God works that way.
Now that I have been spending so much time with blood language in the Bible for a few weeks, I really want to re-read that article. Maybe I can make it back to the library soon to clarify in my mind what the author really said, and properly consider and respond to it.
If his basic argument is that a doctrine of blood atonement necessarily leads Christians to resort to violence as a way to obey and follow their King, I would argue the opposite. It seems to me that if a Christian really accepted that Christ took on himself the blood-guilt of the world, that Christian would need to let go of all attempts to put "blood on the head" of another person. The blood-vengeance has been handed out already for once and all.
I have to find out if the author meant his title this way, "as a result of Christ's blood, God does not any longer require blood." Or this way, "God does not, and did not ever, require blood." The first I would agree with and the second I would strongly disagree with. Too bad, I have to read the article more carefully before I go any further.
Just a minute, now, I tried again and found it! You can read it too and I'll respond to it more tomorrow: click this to link to the article
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Bell is promoting a reductionistic version of the model theory of atonement. Christ's atoning work is limited to his work as a perfect model of obedience, enabling us by his example to live in proper relationship with God and others. Contrary to Bell's insistence, it is his theory that is the distortion of Scripture. Like you mentioned in an earlier post, the doctrine of the atonement is described in various ways in Scripture, but those ways must not be opposed to one another. For example, Christ is propitiation-turning aside the Father's wrath against sin. Christ is redemption, reclaiming for God what has been lost. Christ is second Adam, our perfect covenant head. Christ is victor, defeating Satan, death and hell. There are others. All of these are scriptural facets of Christ's work on our behalf that cannot be discarded, but must be held together.
Here are links to two blog series by Doug Wilson that speak to the issues of God and violence, Christ, substitionary atonement, and blood theology addressed in Bell's article.
"Violence and the Trinity"
http://www.dougwils.com/index.asp?Action=ArchivesByTopic&TopicID=99
"Rene Girard, Mimetic Desire and the Scapegoat"
http://www.dougwils.com/index.asp?Action=ArchivesByTopic&TopicID=79
(posts begin at the bottom of the page)
Also, see this post on DeYoung, Restless and Reformed discussing the something written by John Stott: "Substitution is Not a Theory of the Atonement!"
http://www.revkevindeyoung.com/2009/03/substitution-is-not-theory-of-atonement.html
Post a Comment