The point of this topic is twofold:
- How did the church respond in their thinking, praxis and mission in understanding Jesus’ death (and resurrection) as an atonement? - immediately, in era of the Second Testament; in the Early Church period prior to Constantine; and within the context of Christendom. Why did the feel the need to make some theological/doctrinal sense of it all?
- Why do we need (theories of) the atonement now? How does the historical language/setting of the atonement impact our postmodern, post-Christendom, consumer world? Do they ‘fit’ in our modern world?
This is a place to try to hold together the tension of the historical and the contemporary.
The Need for Theories
What if the reason for developing any theories is the same in history and today?
In the 1st century, to preach the gospel meant to tell the story of Jesus’ life, and the 4 Gospels are perhaps the most elaborate examples. To hear such a story meant (and means) to experience God, and this experience produced “metanoia” (=change of mind, or, technically, repentance).
But when it comes to everyday life, a believer begins to ask simple questions like, What does God think of me? What is his attitude toward me? Did he like what I did? What if he didn’t? Will he support me in what I plan to do?
If one wants to answer these questions, one needs some concepts. I guess many just do not think much about this process, and many of the concepts about God and how he deals with the problem of sin are half-consciously developed — but still developed.
Now, if humans develop ideas and concepts anyway, why not better work on them consciously, logically, theo-logically, and exegetically?