HOW DO WE ACCOUNT FOR THE DEATH AND RESURRECTION OF CHRIST?

The notion of salvation is entrenched in the very essence of the Christian religion. In effect since its establishment in the first century A.D. the Christian church has been “the mission church”, carrying out the proclamation of salvation throughout the world. It was the apostle Paul, throughout his mission trips to the Greco-Roman world, that started to propagate the preaching of salvation by grace, through faith in Jesus Christ. The salvific message entails the belief in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is by accepting that Jesus died on the cross and was raised from the dead that one’s sins are forgiven, and one is subsequently saved from eternal damnation.

Many theories, in Christian history and traditions, explain how this process is rendered. These theories are known as atonement theories. In the next four weeks, I will be discussing the well-known among them.

The most influential theory of all came from a thinker by the name of Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury in the 11 century. Anselm wrote a famous essay or treatise, “Why God Became Man.” In it, he argued that human beings insulted God’s honor by disobeying and rebelling. Because God is just, human sin cannot be overlooked. Justice requires that sin be punished—by the death of the sinner. But God in his mercy, provides a substitute victim, his own perfect Son. This theory is called “Substitution Theory.” In this scenario, we should have died. Jesus got what we deserve. Jesus paid the price we should have paid. God’s mercy and love are expressed in the priceless gift of a son who goes to the cross.

Anselm’s ideas have been the dominant way, Christians have thought about the death of Jesus ever since, influencing both Catholic and Protestant theology, gospel songs, and, of course, evangelical preaching. The great J. S. Bach hymn “O Sacred Head Now Wounded” is a strong expression of Anselm’s thinking:

What thou, my Lord,

has suffered Was all for sinners’ gain:

Mine, mine was the transgression.

But thine the deadly pain.

The problem with the substitution theory is that God is so angry that he demands blood to set things straight. In our society, we have adopted this line of thinking. We have come to believe that “redemptive violence” is key to saving us. We are addicted to violence as a society.

Every incident of gun violence, for example, brings out advocates for more guns, bigger guns, assault weapons, and the argument that we would be less violent and less vulnerable if everyone packed a gun.

At the center of our faith is an act of profound violence, but it is not because God demands blood sacrifice but because God loves so profoundly that God assumes our humanness and walks all the way with us—in our life, our joys and sadness, our health and our sickness, and in our dying.

The words of CS Lewis echo in my mind, “we might not agree with these theories, but what we know is that the death of Christ works for us.”