Radical Nonviolence in the Book of Mormon

The Book of Mormon can be read as a story of two brothers—Nephi and Laman.  It begins with the family of Lehi, which is constantly divided between the influences of these two sons.  The brothers ended their lives as enemies, separated from one another and the rest of the history of this family was a constant struggle between these two groups, the Nephites and the Lamanites.  After hundreds of years this bad blood and intense hatred boils over into destruction of epic scale.

The Book of Mormon is written from the perspective of the Nephites and their perspective of the Lamanites is often less than flattering.  Historian Richard Bushman has speculated what the history would have looked like if Lamanites had written it. [1] The two groups had many prejudices toward each other, which they had carried down from their parents. 

The Lamanites taught their children that Nephi had cheated Laman of his inheritance and sought to rule over his people and had stolen all of their records.  The Lamanites also taught their children “that they should hate them, and that they should murder them, and that they should rob and plunder them, and do all they could to destroy them; therefore they [had] an eternal hatred towards the children of Nephi.” [2]

For their part, the Nephites didn’t have a very high opinion of the Lamanites either.  When the four sons of the King, Mosiah, intended to go to the land of the Lamanites they were mocked by their fellow Nephites.  They said of the Lamanites that their “hearts delight[ed] in the shedding of blood.”  Some even suggested violence as the only solution: “Let us take up arms against them; that we destroy them and their iniquity out of the land, lest they overrun us and destroy us.” [3]

But the four sons of Mosiah did go the land of the Lamanites and their first experiences among them did much to confirm the prejudices of the Nephites.  They were treated very harshly.  Ammon was bound and taken before the local leader.  Luckily, he was able to win over the king, Lamoni.  His brothers were not as lucky, and they were beaten and thrown into prison.  But eventually, relations started to ease and many of the Lamanites began to change.  They had been murderous and bloodthirsty, but when they learned of the Gospel they began to see the error of their violence.

Some of the Lamanites began to change in ways so radical that we might even think unwise.  They still lived amid the danger of invasion and attack but their hearts were so transformed that they had no more desire to fight.

Their king said to his people: “Now, my beloved brethren, since God hath taken away our stains, and our swords have become bright, then let us stain our swords no more with the blood of our brethren… Oh, how merciful is our God! And now behold, since it has been as much as we could do to get our stains taken away from us, and our swords are made bright, let us hide them away that they may be kept bright, as a testimony to our God at the last day, or at the day that we shall be brought to stand before him to be judged, that we have not stained our swords in the blood of our brethren since he imparted his word unto us and has made us clean thereby.  And now, my brethren, if our brethren seek to destroy us, behold, we will hide away our swords, yea, even we will bury them deep in the earth, that they may be kept bright, as a testimony that we have never used them, at the last day; and if our brethren destroy us, behold, we shall go to our God and shall be saved.” [4]

So they buried their weapons, promising never to raise them again.  They were indeed attacked and began to suffer a mass slaughter.  And they just gave up their lives, because “they buried the weapons of war, for peace.” [5] As the other Lamanites were killing them they saw that they didn’t fight back.  “Now when the Lamanites saw this they did forbear from slaying them; and there were many whose hearts had swollen in them for those of their brethren who had fallen under the sword, for they repented of the things which they had done.  And it came to pass that they threw down their weapons of war, and they would not take them again, for they were stung for the murders which they had committed; and they came down even as their brethren, relying upon the mercies of those whose arms were lifted to slay them.  And it came to pass that the people of God were joined that day by more than the number who had been slain.” [6] This radical nonviolence by the Lamanites was more disarming than retaliation.  But many died in the process.  It was a heavy cost but the result was a dramatic transformation of an entire people.

In modern times nonviolence has been extremely effective in bringing about dramatic change. Mohandas Gandhi used nonviolence to end the occupation of India from British rule.  Martin Luther King, influenced by Gandhi, used nonviolent protest in his struggle for civil rights for African Americans.  But these men have been criticized by some who believed that nonviolence was weak and ineffective.   George Jackson, a member of the Black Panthers, said, “the concept of nonviolence is a false ideal. It presupposes the existence of compassion and a sense of justice on the part of one's adversary. When this adversary has everything to lose and nothing to gain by exercising justice and compassion, his reaction can only be negative.” [7]

But the enduring impact of Martin Luther King and Gandhi seems to vindicate and validate their nonviolent practices.  For one thing, the former oppressors have for the most part admitted their wrongdoing much as the murderous Lamanites recognized their own sin.  Had Martin Luther King encouraged violence, civil rights for Africans Americans might not have the widespread acceptance it has today.

The practice of nonviolence is not only effective to win people’s rights and freedoms.  It also brings people together.  The dream of Martin Luther King was not only that black Americans would enjoy the freedoms of white Americans.  Rather it was that “all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing…” And who could argue with that?  Why would we not all want that?  At its heart, nonviolence appeals to the desire of every man and every woman for peace and love, that’s why it touches us all.  To quote the Book of Mormon one more time: "the preaching of the word had a great tendency to lead the people to do that which was just—yea, it had had more powerful effect upon the minds of the people than the sword, or anything else." [8]

Notes

[1] Bushman’s essay is titled The Lamanite View of Book of Mormon History.  It can be read in his book Believing History: Latter-Day Saint Essays.

[2] Mosiah 10:17

[3] Alma 26:24-25

[4] Alma 24:12,15-16

[5] Alma 24:19

[6] Alma 24:24-26

[7] Jackson, George. Soledad Brother: The Prison Letters of George Jackson. Lawrence Hill Books, 1994

[8] Alma 31:5

The Charter for Compassion

It’s very simple and maybe even obvious but that’s kind of what I like about it.    I think most people would agree with the general spirit of the charter even with all our diversity of opinion and belief.  The Charter for Compassion was the idea of author Karen Armstrong.  She won the TED prize in 2008 and got to make a wish from the organization (Technology Entertainment Design, TED).  So she asked for help in promoting and propagating a Charter of Compassion.

The website for the charter is a place you can go to read it and endorse it if you like.  Over 60,000 people have affirmed it so far.  The website is http://www.charterforcompassion.org

Here is the text of the charter:

“The principle of compassion lies at the heart of all religious, ethical and spiritual traditions, calling us always to treat all others as we wish to be treated ourselves. Compassion impels us to work tirelessly to alleviate the suffering of our fellow creatures, to dethrone ourselves from the centre of our world and put another there, and to honour the inviolable sanctity of every single human being, treating everybody, without exception, with absolute justice, equity and respect.

 “It is also necessary in both public and private life to refrain consistently and empathically from inflicting pain. To act or speak violently out of spite, chauvinism, or self-interest, to impoverish, exploit or deny basic rights to anybody, and to incite hatred by denigrating others—even our enemies—is a denial of our common humanity. We acknowledge that we have failed to live compassionately and that some have even increased the sum of human misery in the name of religion.

 “We therefore call upon all men and women ~ to restore compassion to the centre of morality and religion ~ to return to the ancient principle that any interpretation of scripture that breeds violence, hatred or disdain is illegitimate ~ to ensure that youth are given accurate and respectful information about other traditions, religions and cultures ~ to encourage a positive appreciation of cultural and religious diversity ~ to cultivate an informed empathy with the suffering of all human beings—even those regarded as enemies.

 “We urgently need to make compassion a clear, luminous and dynamic force in our polarized world. Rooted in a principled determination to transcend selfishness, compassion can break down political, dogmatic, ideological and religious boundaries. Born of our deep interdependence, compassion is essential to human relationships and to a fulfilled humanity. It is the path to enlightenment, and indispensible to the creation of a just economy and a peaceful global community.”

I think that puts it very well.  Compassion is essentially what it’s all about.  Compassion is more than just feeling sorry for someone.  “Com-passion” means to feel a union with another person.  In my understanding of Christian theology this is the most important teaching we have.  It’s akin to the Greek agape, or love, Paul spoke of to the Corinthians.

“If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become as sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal.  And if I have prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.  If I give away all my goods, and if I give my body to be burned, but do not have love, I gain nothing.  Love suffers long; is kind; love is not envious; love does not vaunt itself; is not puffed up; does not behave unseemly.  It does not seek its own; is not provoked; does not keep record of wrong; it does not rejoice in evil, but rejoices in truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.  Love never fails.”  (1 Corinthians 13:1-8)

Two Ways of Seeing One Reality

One of my favorite works of music is the Sonata quasi una Fantasia by Ludwig van Beethoven.   The first movement is best known as the Moonlight Sonata.  I’ll give a brief description of it.

The piece begins with three pitches produced simultaneously.  Each pitch is produced by a hammer striking a string.  When the hammer strikes the string it causes it to vibrate.  In the case of the Moonlight Sonata, the first three pitches vibrate at frequencies of 69.2957 Hertz, 138.591 Hertz, and 207.652 Hertz.  The frequencies at which these strings vibrate are determined by their length, thickness, and tension.  These pitches are produced at about 50 decibels.  The strings producing the two lower frequencies remain undamped for the first measure continuing to vibrate while the string at the highest frequency it damped by a damper as another string is struck, vibrating at 277.183 Hertz.  This string is then damped and replaced by another string vibrating at 329.628 Hertz.  The three pitches at 207.652 Hertz, 277.183 Hertz, and 329.628 Hertz are played in succession four times for equal values of time.  Each “triplet” lasts 1.154 seconds.  This is the first “measure” of the piece.

The beginning is hauntingly soft, so soft it is almost imperceptible.  The repeating treble line lulls you into peaceful stillness as the bass notes descend slowly.  The tone is distinctly minor and then shifts briefly into major chords as the intensity increases and falls back into the repeating minor chords.  Finally the slow melody breaks the monotony of the repeating patterns.  The melody is slow and soars over the substructure of the supporting broken triplet chords.  The melody follows the same minor chord pattern but then begins to surge forward into major chords and receding back like a wave.  Each time the melody pushes forward with greater intensity, climbing toward immanent resolution and falling back into the same repeating cadence.

Both descriptions I have presented of this piece of music represent reality.  However, their approaches are markedly different.  The first, objective description was actually easier to write, although more technically rigorous.  Music has measureable, physical properties.  Music is sound and sound has frequency and amplitude.  Sound waves can be measured, quantified, and characterized.  These sound waves can be plotted with respect to time and give a completely accurate demonstration of what the music is.  But the second approach is the subjective relation of the experience of the music.  The physical properties explained in the first description are the same whether or not any person is listening or not.  But the emotional and sensational effects of music depend on the person hearing it.  These effects, while real, are much more difficult to describe.  But it is because of the emotional and sensational effects of music that we even bother to produce and listen to it.

These are two ways of seeing one reality.  Reality is the same regardless of how we choose to look at it.  One definition I like was put forward by Phillip K. Dick: “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.”  If I am listening to the Moonlight Sonata there are real sound waves traveling through the air and entering my ear.  From there, the sounds are interpreted via various chemical processes in my brain.  The emotions produced in my brain are just as real as the sound waves that led up to them.  Emotions can be explained by chemistry but I don’t generally bother to think about them that way.  I just feel them.  All these things comprise the whole sum of reality, which is vastly more complex than we can ever take in at any one time.  There are so many ways to look at a single reality but I group them into two categories. 

The first way I think of looking at reality is the way of science, including logic, mathematics and so forth.  Everything in the universe can be reduced to the particles that make up matter, their vectors of motion, the forces acting on them, and their configuration with each other.  Science is able to explain a great deal, and even with its obvious limitations it is quite probable that those things that cannot now be explained are at least explainable. 

The second way of looking at reality is to see things as whole things, in entirety.  While a person is indeed a complex configuration of particles organized in a living body, a person can also be viewed as a person as such.  A person can be loved in a way that particles in their body cannot.  Or to use my example of music, the Moonlight Sonata is more than a series of combined sound waves.  It is also a beautiful work of art.

The most interesting description of these two methods I know of was written by Martin Buber (1878-1965).  He said, “The world is twofold for man in accordance with his twofold attitude.”  He described these two attitudes in accordance with two basic words, or word-pairs.

1.  I-It

2.  I-You

The I-It attitude is the way we relate to an object.  These objects can be people or things.  The difference between the I-It and the I-You is not the specific parties involved but the attitude we take toward them.  The I-It view is not bad or wrong.  In fact, the I-It is the way we usually live.  In order to survive we need to understand the general order of things and find our place in that order.  We live in a universe of cause and effect, and the better we can understand this pattern the more successful we will be.  This is the attitude of analysis and in its formal application, science.  The objects we experience in the I-It relationship are seen as the sum of their components rather than as whole entities.  This is the dissection of the sonata into its physical description and it is one way of looking at Beethoven’s music.

The I-You attitude is the way of encounter with our whole being.  The “You” can be a person but can also be inanimate, even a sonata.  If I relate to you as an “I” to a “You” I see you not as the sum total of the particles that make up your body but as “You”, your whole being.  This encounter (Buber describes it as an encounter as opposed to experience) is acutely centered in “You”.  For that moment the entire universe as far as I am concerned is centered in “You”.  Rather than the dissection of the sonata into physical descriptions, The I-You encounter with the Moonlight Sonata is a relationship to the music as a whole.  It is seeing the reality that transcends the sum of its parts.  I believe it is the way Beethoven viewed his music, which is why he was such an exceptional artist.

How is it possible to be spiritual in the wake of the tremendous successes of science?  Science can so accurately describe the universe.  To live in the life of the spirit can almost seem superfluous.  But the two world-views are not different explanations of the universe.  Rather, they are two unique ways of seeing the same universe, two ways of seeing one reality.  Both are correct and both are important. The Moonlight Sonata is a collection of sound waves.  But it is also something more, and to know what that something is you have to encounter it for itself.  The first view is necessary in order to live successfully in the world.  But it is the the second view that really makes life worth living.

Atonement Theory, Part 2: In Christ

If there is one thing to understand about Jesus it is that he was a man, a real human being.  Jesus did not float above the ground as he moved form place to place.  He walked like anyone else and his feet got dirty.  He did not have a halo hovering over his head but looked like everyone else around him.  He got dirty, tired, hungry and thirsty.  Sometimes in our efforts to emphasize Christ’s divinity we gloss over one of his most important attributes—his humanity.  I believe that to understand the Atonement it is crucial to understand that Jesus was a real human person just like us.

The Book of Mormon says: “And he [Jesus] shall go forth, suffering pains and afflictions and temptations of every kind; and this that the word might be fulfilled which saith he will take upon him the pains and the sicknesses of his people.  And he will take upon him death, that he may loose the bands of death which bind his people; and he will take upon him their infirmities, that his bowels may be filled with mercy, according to the flesh, that he may know according to the flesh how to succor his people according to their infirmities.  Now the Spirit knoweth all things; nevertheless the Son of God suffereth according to the flesh that he might take upon him the sins of his people, that he might blot out their transgressions according to the power of his deliverance; and now behold, this is the testimony which is in me.” (Alma 7:11-13)   I believe this passage from the Book of Mormon is the most complete and descriptive explanation of the Atonement anywhere.  Jesus, the man, learned in the experiences of mortality how to succor his people.

Earlier, I reviewed some of the historical theories of Atonement.  They can all work very well as analogies.  But with the exception of Ostler’s Compassion Theory they all seem to be using the Atonement as an answer in search of a problem.  My main critique here is of the Penal Substitution Theory because I think it is the most common and because it is the understanding of Atonement I grew up with.  The critical question is this: why can’t God just forgive sins?  Why are death, blood and suffering required?  Many of the theories construct elaborate conceptual scaffolding around the issue to make the suffering of Christ seem more necessary.  But these explanations are generally extra-scriptural; making the issue more complicated then it needs to be. 

Here I’d like to invoke the insights of William Ockham (1288-1348).  The famous principle of Ockham’s razor states: “Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate” meaning “Plurality must never be posited without necessity”.  The basic idea is that you generally should not add additional layers of complexity to explain something; rather a simple explanation is more likely correct.  Ockham was one of the earliest nominalists, maintaining that universals like “Justice” do not exist as actual entities but rather are descriptions of common traits held by particulars like a just man or a just God.

Something held in common with the Satisfaction Theory, the Governmental Theory, and the Penal Substitution Theory is the use of some universal like Honor, Law, or Justice.  Justice is almost personified as an entity more powerful than God himself.  Since this ethereal entity of Justice is so unbending even to God, he must sacrifice his Son to meet its demands.  This relates strongly to the Problem of Universals.  When Justice is understood as an actual entity it’s as though the conservation of mass and energy apply: all this sin and guilt have to go somewhere, so Christ absorbs it for us.

The way I learned the Penal Substitution Theory was something like this.  We are sinners and have offended God and deserve his punishment.  God cannot deny justice or he would cease to be God (Alma 42:13).  So God sent Jesus to suffer for our sins to fulfill the demands of justice.  Therefore, Jesus suffers the penalty for our sins so we don’t have to.  This allows God to satisfy both Justice and Mercy.  Justice is satisfied because Christ has paid the penalty.  Mercy is satisfied because we are not punished for our sins.

This theory seems to work pretty well with scripture.  But it also begs certain questions.  The first question, again, is why does God have to punish somebody at all?  Why can’t he just forgive?  This gets into the question of what justice actually is.  Another question is this—how is it just to punish someone for a crime they didn’t commit?  Isn’t that the very epitome of injustice?  Then again there is the Problem of Universals.  Is Justice actually something that exists in itself, independent of the particulars it describes?  Does it actually have power over God?  My own experience is that I can simply forgive someone who has offended me.  I don’t have to require punishment.  I would never even think of punishing a person for someone else’s crime.  And I don’t believe that Justice, as a universal, as an entity, actually exists.  Rather, justice is a word used to describe just things and just people.

Of course, all understanding of the Atonement is going to employ analogy and metaphor to some extent.  This is why I don’t want to disparage the classical theories of Atonement, because they have good insights that we can learn from.  The idea of Christ taking the punishment for us is very emotionally compelling.  But I think there are other ways to understand the Atonement that work better with scripture and with our most basic moral sensibilities.

In the Book of Mormon, Amulek explicitly contradicts idea of Penal Substitution: “Now there is not any man that can sacrifice his own blood which will atone for the sins of another.  Now, if a man murdereth, behold will our law, which is just, take the life of his brother?  I say unto, Nay.  But the law requireth the life of him who hath murdered; therefore there can be nothing which is short of an infinite atonement which will suffice for the sins of the world” (Alma 34:11-12).  I believe this verse, if taken at face value, rejects the Theory of Penal Substitution. 

Now, one could object that Christ wasn’t really a man, so this condition doesn’t apply.  The divine and human nature of Christ, the hypostatic union, has been a hot topic in Christian history.  However, I believe there is a wealth of scripture to support the real, actual humanity of Christ. 

Another objection could be that punishing one man for the sins of another is normally not allowed, but since the Atonement of Christ is infinite, it is an exception.  In other words, an infinite atonement is super special and will directly contradict the other imperative in this verse—that no person can be punished for the sins of another.  But first, this doesn’t sit well with me simply because of the direct contradiction.  More importantly, there is no evidence in scripture that this is what “infinite” means.  The word “infinite” is never used to mean something capable of making the impossible possible.  Rather, in this verse, the word “infinite” is used in the same way it is always used.  It means without limitation, duration, or bounds.  The Atonement is infinite in its scope—it is “infinite for all mankind” (2 Nephi 25:16).  The Atonement is infinite in love, mercy, and compassion.  It reaches all who have ever lived and all who ever will live.

So what of the man who murdereth?  If the law requireth the life of him who hath murdered and will not allow another to take his place, how can this man be spared?  The answer is forgiveness and mercy.  I come back to the critical question: why can’t God just forgive sins?  Actually, I believe that is precisely what he does.  And that is what the Atonement is.  Atonement is reconciliation, an at-one-ment with God.  Christ came to live on earth as a man to bring us back to God.  The suffering of Christ is not a substitute for our punishment, because God can’t forgive us.  Rather, Christ suffers precisely because he forgives us.  Entering into a close intimate relationship with broken, sinful beings like us causes him tremendous pain.  All the pain and suffering of the world affect Christ just like they do everyone else.  And it is through this shared experience that Christ is able to succor his people and transform them.

But the Book of Mormon does say “the work of justice could not be destroyed; if so, God would cease to be God” (Alma 42:13).  But what exactly is the work of justice?  One interpretation is that every sin that has ever been committed must be punished, even if the offender repents.  At the end of our lives, even if we have repented we will have collected so much sin and guilt that we will be damned unless Christ takes the punishment for us.  But this begs the question—why does this guilt from our past sins follow us around even after repentance?  Are sins like ghosts hovering over us even after we have forsaken them?  I don’t think this is correct.  Alma explained the concept of justice, that for every sin there was a punishment (Alma 42:18-20).  But then he says: “But there is a law given, and a punishment affixed, and a repentance granted; which repentance, mercy claimeth; otherwise, justice claimeth the creature and executeth the law, and the law inflicteth the punishment; if not so, the works of justice would be destroyed, and God would cease to be God” (Alma 42:22, italics added). 

It is important to understand what Alma is actually saying.  There are three operatives: law, punishment, and repentance.  The problem with the Penal Substitution Theory is that it leaves out repentance.  God is just to punish sinners but it would not be just at all to punish people who have repented.  In fact, for the penitent, justice demands that they not be punished.  It is implied that if God were to punish people after they repented he would cease to be God.  Alma says “mercy claimeth the penitent” and all men are brought back to the presence of God “to be judged according to their works, according to the law of justice” (Alma 42:23).  God still acts justly towards the repentant, but now justice works in their favor.  “For behold, justice exercises all his demands, and also mercy claimeth all which is her own; and thus, none but the truly penitent are saved” (Alma 42:24).  God is both just and merciful.  He is justified to punish the sinners, but if they repent and reform he is merciful to them, and justly so.  Again, I understand the personal pronouns here to be figurative descriptions of God’s attributes rather than separate entities of Justice and Mercy.  However, I do like the subtle use of the masculine for Justice and the feminine for Mercy.  A nice little tidbit.

Blake Ostler, in The Problems of Theism and the Love of God, writes: “God could justly punish us now for our sins, but he is merciful in placing us on probation instead and giving us time to repent before judging us.  Because we will be judged at the end of this probationary period, God is both just and merciful.  The entire discourse of atonement focuses on the central truth that the purpose of life is to give us a space in which we can choose to freely enter into relationship with him or reject him.  The atonement is construed as God’s every mode of being in relationship with us in every moment, with Gethsemane and Calvary as the preeminent instances of a supremely loving being sharing our mortality with us.  Such a view avoids the problems of the penal substitutionary view of the atonement, which I believe is a morally reprehensible way of explaining God’s love and reconciliation through atonement” (p. ix-x)

So why does Christ have to suffer?  The short answer is that he suffers because we suffer.  The Atonement is not about substitution; it’s about union.  Christ doesn’t step out in front of our burdens and deflect them, he shares them as an intimate companion.  Jesus said, “take my yoke upon you” (Matthew 11:29).  The yoke is a symbol of union, being joined in our labor and finding rest in his strength.  Jesus called himself the bridegroom (Matthew 25:1-13).  It is helpful to think of union with Christ like a marriage.  Husband and wife share in each other’s burdens and sorrows as well as their happiness and joy.  Christ, as God incarnate, weeps with us, sorrows with us, and if we allow it, rejoices with us.

To be in Christ is to be in it for the good times and the bad.  Paul said, “we are children of God; And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together” (Romans 8:16-17).  To be in Christ means that we suffer with him and that he suffers with us, but we will be glorified to together.  This union, Atonement in Christ, is symbolized in baptism as we symbolically die and are buried in his death but then rise in the likeness of his resurrection.  “Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him” (Romans 6:8).  This union is completely transforming: “Therefore, if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new” (2 Corinthians 5:17).  By the Atonement, we are actually transformed into the likeness of Christ.  We are conformed to his image (Romans 8:29) and receive his image in our countenances (Alma 5:14). 

To see how the Atonement of Christ is significant it is important to understand the other part of Jesus’ nature—his Godhood.  The Atonement doesn’t work unless Jesus is everything that we are and feels everything that we feel.  But in Christ we also see God as a man, descending to earth to live among us and to see what it is like to be one of us.  Jesus showed us what God is truly like (John 1:18).  God is not off in an ivory tower looking down from on high.  God is down here with us.  He doesn’t just send us down to live in the gutter and then wish us good luck.  He is here, in it with us for the long haul.  And God is on our side.  “What shall we then say to these things?  If God be for us, who can be against us?” (Romans 8:31).

It is important to state here that the Atonement is absolutely necessary for us.  The Atonement is essentially the union and reconciliation between God and man.  If the Atonement does not happen there is no union or reconciliation and we are cut off from God forever.  Furthermore, it was necessary for Christ to be born, live, and die in the world.  The Atonement is Christ reaching for us and sharing his life with us.  Not only is it essential for us; it is also essential for him.  “For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.  Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.  For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted” (Hebrew 2:18).

My understanding of the Atonement is very similar to the Compassion Theory of Blake Ostler.  This theory takes advantage of additional scripture of the Book of Mormon, which I really like (we should take advantage of it).  I think it is also consistent with the Bible.  I totally recommend checking it out.  You can read more about it in his book, The Problems of Theism and the Love of God, or in a shorter paper I have linked at the bottom.  Any theological doctrine is going to be an approximation and will need further development.  But that shouldn’t prevent anyone from keeping away from the discussion.  The most important thing about Atonement theory is its ability to help us appreciate the Atonement in a way that is meaningful to us.  Ultimately, I don’t know exactly how it happens.  It defies comprehension. But I am grateful that it does happen.

Reference

Atonement in Mormon Thought by Blake Ostler

http://blakeostler.com/docs/AtonementInMormonThought.pdf

Atonement Theory, Part 1: A History

It might be surprising to find out that something as foundational as the doctrine of the Atonement has been interpreted very differently throughout history.  Here I would like to review the history of Atonement theory in Christianity.  It would be interesting to extend this back into the history of Judaism but that is another topic on it’s own.  In Reform Theology and in most LDS discussion the dominant theory of Atonement is that of Penal Substitution.  However, this theory was not developed until the Reformation.  There had been several other theories before this one.   I’ll go through some of these theories here as well as one more modern theory.  Later on, I will discuss my own understanding of the Atonement.

The Ransom Theory

According to the Ransom Theory, Christ’s Atonement was a ransom payment made to the devil to deliver our souls from Hell.  Satan was tricked into thinking that he could keep the soul of Christ captive after this transaction.  But since Christ is divine Satan was unable to hold him captive.  Scriptural basis for the theory comes from a few sources.  In Mark, “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45).  From Paul, “For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men—the testimony given in its proper time” (1 Timothy 2:5-6).  This theory was promoted by Origen (185-254) as well as Irenaeus (d. 202) and Tertullian (160-220).

The Satisfaction Theory

According to the Satisfaction Theory, Christ suffered to satisfy the demands of God’s honor and merit.  This theory is best understood in terms of the feudal society in which it developed.  This theory was put forward by Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109).  Anselm compared God to a feudal lord who had been wronged by his surfs and needed to maintain his honor.  No mere mortal, or surf, could satisfy the injury to the honor of a lord.  Only a lord, or God, could satisfy God’s honor.  This theory emphasizes God’s justice, which must always be satisfied.  It’s emphasis on justice makes it very similar to the Penal Substitution Theory.

The Governmental Theory

This theory is very similar to the Satisfaction Theory and the Penal Substitution Theory.  The Governmental Theory says that God is the great lawgiver and that he must uphold the law.  Whenever a law is broken there must be a punishment to sustain order in the universe.  Christ thus suffers the penalty for the broken law.  This Theory was developed by Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) who was, incidentally, a jurist.

The Moral Theory

In this theory, Christ’s sacrifice is not so much intended to affect God the Father at is intended to affect us.  The Atonement of Christ demonstrates the supreme love of God for us and thus moves us to repentance and love for God.  This theory was developed by Peter Abelard (1079-1142).  A similar idea was promoted by Faustus (1539-1604) and Laelius Socinius (1525-1562).  They saw the Atonement was the most beautiful demonstration of God’s love.  It also an example of supreme love for God, inspiring us to love God to the same degree.  “To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his footsteps” (1 Peter 2:21).

Penal Substitution Theory

This is the dominant view in the Reform Tradition and probably the most common explanation of Atonement given today.  According to Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology, penal substitution is “the view that Christ in his death bore the just penalty of God for our sins as a substitute for us” (p. 1251).  “This view is sometimes called the theory of vicarious atonement.  A ‘vicar’ is someone who stands in the place of another or who represents another.  Christ’s death was therefore ‘vicarious’ because he stood in our place and represented us.  As our representative, he took the penalty that we deserve” (ibid. 579).  This theory was largely developed by John Calvin (1509-1564).

These are the major theories of Atonement throughout the history of Christianity.  However, there is one more theory I would like to mention since it is my favorite and the closest to my own view.  It is called the Compassion Theory, developed by Mormon theologian and philosopher Blake Ostler in the second volume of his series Exploring Mormon Thought: The Problems of Theism and the Love of God.

Ostler defended his theory in another paper titled Atonement in Mormon Thought (see link below).  In this paper he listed five questions he felt that any theory of Atonement should address:

1. How are Christ’s life, death and resurrection either necessary or uniquely beneficial to expiate or eradicate the effects of sin in our lives so that we are reconciled to God here and now?

2. Why can’t we just be forgiven without someone suffering?

3. Why does Christ’s suffering and experience atone for our sins in a way that the Father and the Holy Ghost do not?

4. How could Christ “bear our sins” or “take our sins upon him” that we commit in the here and now in a way that caused him to suffer?

5. How do the ordinances of sacrament and baptism (among others) signify what occurs in atonement?

He also proposes that any theory of Atonement should meet Abelard’s Constraint, that is to say it be “neither unintelligible, arbitrary, illogical, nor immoral.”

Compassion Theory

The Compassion Theory takes advantage of the meaning of the word “com-passion” which etymologically means “feel in union with”.  In The Problems of Theism and the Love of God, Ostler says: “The purpose of Atonement is to overcome our alienation by creating compassion, a life shared in union where we are moved by our love for each other.  ‘The Passion’ also refers to Christ’s suffering—and thus com-passion is to share in Christ’s suffering and he in ours, that we might share also in the unsurpassable joy of each others’ lives… The purpose of the atonement in LDS scripture is to ‘bring about the bowels of mercy’ so that God is moved with compassion for us and we are moved with gratitude to trust him by opening our hearts to him.  The result of the Atonement is that we are free to choose to turn back to God, and he is free to accept us into a relationship of shared life.  Atonement removes, casts out, and releases the guilt that alienates us; and it also brings us together into shared life.  When we let go of our past and release the painful energy of alienation, Christ experiences that release and receives into himself the pain that we have experienced to be transformed by the light of his love.  If we refuse to let go of our past histories and the pain that arises from our sins, we will continue to experience pain.  If we let go of that pain; however, then Christ experiences the very pain that we release, but we no longer have to.  In his Passion we find compassion.  He literally feels our and pains is thereby filled with compassion for us.  In this sense, Christ suffers for our sins and bears our iniquities” (235-236).

So there is a brief review of the major theories of this most important doctrine.  Later, I will talk about my own understanding of the Atonement in response to scripture and in response to personal experience.

Reference:

Blake Ostler’s Atonement in Mormon Thought

http://blakeostler.com/docs/AtonementInMormonThought.pdf

Faith And/Or Works

When I was in college I liked to pass through the main mall going by the food court and library.  Sometimes I would take the long route just to see what was going on.  There were usually a handful of demonstrators and preachers and it was always an interesting diversion.  I remember one time I heard a preacher yell out: “for all you people who think you’re gonna get to Heaven by being nice people and doing good I’ll tell you the only way to be saved is through Christ.”  The college kids weren’t responding very well.  It might have been because his friend had another poster detailing why every group and subgroup on campus was going to Hell.  But regardless of what people may think, college kids are pretty morally conscious, sometimes hyper-morally conscious.  College kids are always getting involved in efforts to help alleviate poverty and protect the environment out of altruistic, idealistic motives.  And here was a guy telling them that all these good works were a waste of time and that they should instead be focusing on Jesus.

It’s great to testify of Jesus, but why downplay the importance of good works and good character?  Are good works and faith in Christ mutually exclusive?  The question is often framed “are we saved by works or by grace?”  This has been a big theological debate for hundreds of years.  Augustine was probably the most prominent theologian to discuss it in early Christianity.  During the Reformation Martin Luther brought this question to the forefront and it was continued by John Calvin.  But I think this whole discussion is presenting a false dichotomy and actually distorts the meaning of faith.  We don’t have a choice of either faith or works.  If you have faith in Christ you have faith and works.

This whole debate seems like a distraction to me.  Why worry so much about this?  Doing good is never bad.  It sounds silly to even say such a thing but it sometimes seems necessary.  Good works, genuinely good works are never bad and they are never condemned in scripture.  Scriptures only condemn pride, doing good things for glory and honor.  Jesus never said not to help the poor.  He just said to go and do it in private rather than make a big scene for the appearance of piety (Matthew 6:1-4).  Even Paul never condemned good works.  Paul just stressed that despite our efforts to do good work, we fail; but we can still be accepted by God through his grace (Romans 7:19-25; Romans 8).  Paul also warned about pride: “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is a gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast” (Ephesians 2:8-9).

There is a certain nuance in the scriptures, especially in Paul.  We sometimes have a difficult time with nuance.  But the tension is this—we are saved by grace and not by our works, but good works are still essential.  We can’t just say “I’m saved” and then live a life of sin.  “What shall we say then?  Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?  God forbid.  How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer in therein?” (Romans 6:1-2)  This is nuance taught in the seminaries and is well understood by the educated clergy.  But unfortunately the message sometimes get’s lost on the rest of us.  It’s easier to avoid the tension and break things down into black and white—faith or works, take your pick.

Theologian J.I. Packer said: “Faith cannot be defined in subjective terms, as a confident and optimistic mind-set, or in passive terms, as acquiescent orthodoxy or confidence in God without commitment to God.  Faith is an object-oriented response, shaped by that which is trusted, namely God himself, God’s promises, and Jesus Christ, all as set forth in the Scriptures.  And faith is a whole-souled response, involving mind, heart, will and affections.

Reformed theologians actually had a very developed understanding of faith.  They broke down faith into three parts: notitia, assensus, and fiducia.

Notitia is the knowledge of the content of the gospel.

Assensus is the agreement, recognition that the gospel is true.  We usually focus primarily on this aspect of faith. 

Fiducia is trust and reliance in God.  It is trusting that although we sin and fail at times, we can trust in the grace of God and in the Atonement of Christ.  This is the element of commitment and dedication.

The idea that we don’t need God or God’s grace is the heresy of legalism.  The people the get all worked up and condemn the idea of salvation by works are very wary of the doctrine of legalism.  The danger of legalism is that it can be very damaging to our individual esteem.  If we think we have to be perfect we are apt to compare ourselves to others and feel we are not good enough.  Or we might get an inflated ego and feel like we are better than everyone else.  Both attitudes are alienating God.

The opposite end of legalism is antinomianism.  Antinomianism (literally “against+law”) is the idea that after we declare our faith in Christ we no longer need to abide by any rules.  The dangers of this doctrine should be obvious.  My big question to antinomianism is—what’s the point?  So God saves a bunch of vile, wretched people who stay that way forever.  That doesn’t even seem like salvation at all.  There is no progress.  It is eternal degeneracy.  I find it hard to admire a religion that doesn’t uplift and ennoble people’s lives or somehow make the world a better place.

Going back to J.I. Packer he says: “But if ‘good works’ (activities of serving God and others) do not follow from our profession of faith, we are as yet believing only from the head, not from the heart, in other words, justifying faith (fiducia) is not yet ours.  The truth is that, though we are justified by faith alone, the faith that justifies is never alone.”  A good way to get a deeper understanding of faith is to observe the different comments by Paul and James.  James famously said, “faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone” (James 2:17).  So does James contradict Paul?  Well, it’s possible that the two themselves got into arguments over this; we don’t know for sure.  But even if they did, they didn’t have to.  J.I. Packer said: “When James says that faith without works is dead (i.e., a corpse), he is using the word faith in the limited sense of notitia plus assensus, which is how those he addresses were using it.  When he says that one is justified by what one does, not by faith alone, he means by ‘justified’ ‘proved genuine; vindicated from the suspicion of being a hypocrite and a fraud.’  James is making the point that barren orthodoxy saves no one (James 2:14-26).  Paul would have agreed, and James’s whole letter shows him agreeing with Paul that faith must change one’s life.  Paul denounces the idea of salvation by dead works; James rejects salvation by dead faith.”

This leads into another key concept in Christian theology—sanctification.  Sanctification is “an ongoing transformation within a maintained consecration, and it engenders real righteousness within the frame of relational holiness” (Packer).  The “born-again” experience is regeneration.  But regeneration is just the beginning.  Sanctification is the continuing process that follows.  As Packer says: “Regeneration is birth; sanctification is growth.”  If you stop your spiritual progress right after you’re born again you remain a spiritual infant.

So maybe someday I’ll run out to the University and start preaching “All you people out there trying to live good lives and do good works, keep it up.  And don’t be discouraged when you make mistakes, God loves you anyway and wants to help you.  Trust God and follow Christ and you can have a great life.”  Or something like that.  We don’t need to have these extreme distinctions, choosing either a life of faith or a life of good works.  It’s not faith or works; it’s faith and works.

Referenced

Packer, J.I. Concise Theology: A Guide to Historic Christian Beliefs.

Children of Abraham

Although it was a week ago I wanted to talk about my experience at the interfaith event in Tempe on September 11^th.  The Islamic Community Center of Tempe hosted the event.  The night was centered on the sacred stories of our traditions and was inspired primarily as a response to a plan by a church in Florida to burn copies of the Qur’an in mass on that same day.  The pastor conducting put it well—that rather than burn books of scripture we should let the words of scripture burn in our hearts.

There was a moment of silence in which everyone stood as the Torah, Bible, and Qur’an were carried around the courtyard for everyone to see.  They were then placed on the front table for everyone to look at for the rest of the evening.  It turns out that this Torah scroll had a very interesting story.  It came from Czechoslovakia and was confiscated by the Nazis during the Third Reich.  The Nazis preserved it as a relic to be held up for contempt.  After the war it was salvaged and eventually made its way to Arizona where it is kept today.

Reverend Reller of the United Church of Christ showed us his family Bible that had been passed down for over 200 years.  He said that it looked like it had never been read but had a lot of interesting documents inside the front cover from his family history.  For example, an 18^th century newspaper clipping revealed that they descended form Jewish immigrants.  This Bible was given to him by his grandmother.  He told story of his childhood when he asked his grandmother why she loved her grandchildren.  She said that God loved them so she should love them too.  Then he recounted the story of Hagar and Ishmael, ancestors of the Muslims.  When Hagar and Ishmael were about to die in the desert God sent and angel to save them.  Then years later when Joseph’s brothers were about to kill him they decided to sell him instead to the Ishmaelites who were passing by.  So if there are too many Jews and too many Muslims we can thank the Muslims for saving the Jews and we can thank God for saving the Muslims.  And since God loves them, we’re just going to have to love them too.

The Imam shared a story of a young Russian boy who participated in a competition in Dubai for reciting the Qur’an and won.  The young boy told about his father and grandfather who lived under the communist Soviet Union that prohibited owning a copy of the Qur’an.  The grandfather had taken this boys father to a cave in his youth where they had hidden copies of the Qur’an and taught him to memorize it.  Going to and from the cave the grandfather would blindfold him so he would not know where these illegal books were hidden.  This boy passed on the Qur’an orally to his son.  It was found that in Russia copies of the Qur’an were often hidden in dry wall and buried in empty caskets.  Decades of communist oppression were not able to wipe out the words of the Qur’an in Russia.  They killed 30 million people but couldn’t destroy the Qur’an.  Then the Imam said what we need to burn are candles of love and peace.

It was a really great night and it just felt great being with so many people of good will.  It is easy to be depressed with all the negativity in the news about religion but being with this people just wiped all of that away.  This is what America is really about.