Life

It is a unique read that taught me some good early church history along the way, while also giving me a visual picture of a mosaic of atonement that I believe will be helpful for me in the future. 

What I greatly appreciated about McNall's work is that he is sowing seeds of peace and unity by trying to quell some of the argumentation that goes on within the body of Christ. To quote him from his conclusion section where he is emphasizing why it is NOT helpful to "rank or create hierarchy" among the various "models or views of atonement", he says: 

"I have argued that Scripture gives no clear reason for this hierarchy, and in the worst instances, competitive and combative approaches to Christ's work have had the sad result of turning history's preeminent act of reconciliation into yet another argument. Thus Christians take up (metaphorical) arms and blogging platforms to pronounce that "I am of Anselm, I am of Abelard, I am of Aulen -- and this is just the 'A' list!" In these instances, Paul's question to the Corinthians floats like a lament over the denuded battlefield of our atonement infighting: "Is Christ divided?" (1 Cor 1:13)"

He also draws very respectful but firm lines against some teachings on "atonement" that I have been worried about, namely some prominent Evangelical / Reformed teachers that, in my opinion, can lead to confusion and misunderstanding; within trinitarian theology (there are some specific slippery slopes that dangerously arrive at eternal subordination of the Son, the Father being angry with and pitted against the Son, and the Son (instead of Sin) being the focus of God's judgement) as well as in salvific models (McNall does a fair job of balancing God's sovereignty and our free will while refuting hard-line determinism/predestinarianism).

His advice is to preach the cross, not crass analogies which can often break-down more quickly than we expect and can lead to misunderstandings. Understanding the covenant framework of the OT and how Jesus fulfills that (and bears its punishment/curse) is also important, he says. Wisely he recommends that atonement models be integrated and preached/taught together and not as distinct or set apart. This is largely what his book is striving to do, laying out an integrated whole.

However, what I most appreciated was the calling he leads to throughout the book of viewing atonement as praxis. We are crucified with Christ and are caught up WITH him in heavenly places now, but also called to stand and persevere here on earth, carrying our own cross and making disciples. I think this is where McNall's thoughts align well with Matthew Bates (embodied, relational, outward working allegiance), and I'll close this blog with this excerpt from pg 286. 

Blessings to each of you and I welcome your thoughts and conversation if you get a chance to read this book:

(The Mosaic of Atonement, pg 286)

"Atonement as praxis. Now for a potential objection.

Some might argue that an emphasis on revealing and rejecting rivalry and scapegoating does not belong within atonement doctrine proper. Rather, it is the stuff of "ethics" and "sanctification." and should therefore be relegated to an appendix of Christ's saving work. To do otherwise (these critics might allege) would be to imperil the claim of salvation sola fide and to come dangerously close to a redemption that is linked to moral striving. While these ethical concerns may, of course, be discussed by Christians, this conversation should take place only after the doctrine of salvation has been more or less exhausted. 

I beg to differ. In the provocative (but accurate) words of Scot McKnight, the "atonement is not just something done to us and for us, it is something we participate in -- in this world, in the here and now." Atonement is praxis, both for Jesus and his people. The basis for this claim resides partly in Paul's word in 2 Cor 5:18-21. Here we are told not only that we have been reconciled to God in Christ but also that we have also been given "the ministry of reconciliation" (v19). "We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf; Be reconciled to God. God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God". For sake of clarity, participation in God's reconciliation does not mean that we can atone for ourselves or for others. Salvation is by Christ alone, and as McKnight makes clear, we are still "cracked eikons" of the King, holding treasure in our jars of clay. The face remains however that by being conformed to Christ's image by the Spirit...we can (and must) share in God's ongoing work of reconciliation. Mimesis (mimicking Christ) leads to mission, and mission means participation in God's reconciling work. The basis for this move should be clear: we participate in atonement because we participate in Christ."