atonement

a buddy of mine asked me about my thoughts on the atonement. here is a little bit of what i e-mailed to him. this shouldn't be as controversial as some of my previous posts (i think).

............................................................................................

my view of the atonement stems largely from my view of god and punishment. i think that god works within some sort of already existing framework of laws, most of them being physical. moral laws are based primarily on love/charity. did you love or did you not love (which is theme of judgement in matthew 25:31-46).

a predominant view of the atonement in mormonism and christianity is the 'substitutionary penal theory'. this is the belief that man is to be punished for certain sins, but christ instead takes on those punishments, and both mercy and justice is served. i find this view problematic for several reasons. first, i do not believe that either mery or justice is served by this theory. while mercy may be seemed to be applied if one holds the traditional christian view of a triune god, it does not seem to work in the lds view of the godhead. while christ may be extending an arm of mercy, this leaves god the father as a stubborn being who demands that punishment be made. concerning justice, how is justice ever accomplished here? let's say that saddam hussein is tried in an iraqi court and condemned to be beheaded. in my mercy, i step up and say that i'll take on saddam's punishment. they let saddam go free, and i get my head lobbed off. would anyone ever argue that justice was served here?

some could counter the latter arguement (as many do) that jesus actually took on our sins. this, i guess assumes that sins have some actual ontological status. that when you do wrong, you actually collect sin-stuffs on your soul. in this sense, out sin-stufs are placed on christ, and he is punished as the guilty one with all of our sin-stuffs on him. i find this unlikely, not only because i don't believe that these metaphyscial sin-stuffs actually exist, but more because of my view of god and punishment.

to say that there exists certain laws which we must keep or be punished seems to indicate to me that god creates certain arbitrary laws which must be followed or punishment must ensue. i see this as no different than myself telling my brother to make me a sandwhich or get beat with a stick. if he does not obey my commandment, then he gets beat and that'll suck pretty bad for him. if he does make me a sandwhich, he will get the glory of not being beaten.

so where is this all going, what do i think of the atonement? i believe our ultimate duty here is to love. that is the one commandment that christ himself gave during his mortality. most other commandments are god's and the prophets' attempts to place us in a position in which we could love the most (though this is greatly abused and misunderstood). our 'punishment' will not be the result of breaking arbitray commandments, but rather will be the guilt brought upon ourselves when we realize that we did not love as we could/should have.

this is where christ's mecy comes in. this mercy comes from forgiveness. even as we have done it unto others, we have done it unto him and likewise, even as we have not done it unto others, we have not doen it unto him. i believe that christ acts as the proxy forgiver for all those whom we did not love enough. he is able to forgive us for the wrongs we have done to others.

so where does christ's suffering fit in? somehow (and i'm not sure exactly how) christ suffered both the injustices we have done to others and the guilt of our realization in what we have done (or not done). this enables him to understand both parties and give real forgiveness. i am sure you have, at one time or another, betrayed a friend. this kills you and is almost unbearable. the only peace you find is when you realize that your friend has really forgiven you. this is the same kind of forgiveness that christ is able to offer us.