Atonement for a Sinless Society
Atonement for a ‘Sinless’ Society:Engaging with an Emerging Culture by Alan Mann, Paternoster Press, 2005
Among the myriad of literature coming out of the emerging culture dialogue, Alan Mann’s recent book has cause for all of us to take notice. Based on his Master’s degree thesis, Mann offers a view of the atonement that can be heard by those of the emerging culture. He rightly states that we are well overdue for an update on the explanation of atonement and salvation that addresses the issues faced by individuals in our culture.
Review
Given that older models of the atonement are no longer being heard by the emerging culture, Mann attempts to answer two very important questions:
How do post-modern, post-industrialized, post-Christian people see themselves? And what influence will that have on the theological task of making the gospel heard? These are the huge questions with myriad of answers, but they are also the questions of culture and context that the church has always faced. (p. 4)
In his exegesis of emerging culture, he determines that the culture is a “sinless” society. The views of the atonement that address the issues of sin and guilt find no ground to settle on in the heart and mind of those living in this culture. Mann suggests that our culture has semantically altered the definition of sin from its Victorian meaning to identifying with what brings pleasure in life. What is wrong in humanity has shifted to an “absence of mutual, intimate, undistorted relating” which becomes the source of “ontological incoherence.”
This sense of “ontological incoherence” or more simply put “a broken sense of being” causes shame rather than guilt. Therefore, sin finds its root in our culture in the sense of shame in the individual who feels they do not measure up and cannot attain the “ideal” life they are looking for. This ideal life is characterized as the attainment of mutual, intimate, undistorted relating.” Drawing on his research in the area of Narrative Therapy in psychology circles, Mann describes this inability to attain the “ideal” life as a vicious circle where the individual desires relationship but because they focus on the self rather than the other, there is a breakdown in relationship which results in a feeling of isolation and a sense of no meaning and connection in life.
Mann describes this disconnection as a broken ability to relate to the “Other.” This “other” is a reference to God and to others in life. Such an unawareness of the “Other” results in what Mann calls a “pre-social and pre-moral” existence for the person living in the emerging culture. Because there is no awareness of God and life is lived in pre-occupation with the self, explanations of atonement as forgiveness for sin against God and others is virtually incomprehensible. The church needs to re-orient its explanation of atonement using a solid biblical basis for addressing the problem of shame. The focus of atonement needs to shift from “forgiveness” to “acceptance.” The shift is subtle but yet significant in making the message of atonement comprehensible to the post-modern.
Mann emphasizes that appropriating salvation needs to move from a “confession” of sin and guilt to a sense of “cleansing that leads to belonging.” In this way, the issue of broken relationship is addressed, rather than the issue of infraction against God. Given this, he feels that the images of “ritual cleansing” can find a place again in the church’s liturgy. Salvation then is not so much a response to a crisis [“I’ve done something against God”] for a post-modern but a patient process over time where shame is abated and inclusion into community is accomplished. [“I can have mutual, intimate, undistorted relationship”]
The concept then for communicating salvation is not propositional truth but rather narrative. Story has replaced truth and fact as the communication of reality. Post-moderns are caught up in a series of smaller stories. They are searching for a meta-narrative and very sceptical as they do so while looking in the rear view mirror at a meta-narrative of modernity that has proved untrue. Although sceptical of meta-narrative, Mann emphasizes that post-moderns need an alternative narrative to make sense of their own stories. The church should offer such a meta-narrative not as an argument against but rather the telling of its own story in the sea of stories that present themselves as options. This then is an act of letting God use the encounter of our story telling to communicate truth and reality.
Mann finds that what is missing for the post-modern is a sense of “Other.” With out God in their worldview, a meta-narrative can never truly make ultimate sense. If the shame of ontological incoherence [or broken sense of being] is ever to be dealt with, the presence and importance of “Other” must enter the meta-narrative of the post-modern. It is the only way that the pre-occupation with the self can be altered to a biblical sense of belonging to the “Other.”
Following the pattern of therapeutic narrative, Mann encourages the offering of “counter narratives,” much like the ancient world used “myth,” to give post-moderns an alternative story to place themselves in besides the broken story that they personally live in. It is in this sense that Mann feels the church has let the post-modern down. Using the concepts of “thick” and “thin” story telling, the church has offered a “thin” explanation that has simplified salvation to one basic propositional infraction and a resultant event that cures it. A “thick” [complex and intricate communication] retelling of the story needs to replace the “thin one single all encompassing modern telling of salvation.” Mann suggests that this is not difficult since the bible itself communicates a “thick” telling of the story.
What is significant in the retelling of the biblical story is that “ontological coherence” is achieved in the person of Jesus. The post-modern has the opportunity to see their “ideal” self in the person of Jesus of Nazareth who lives in mutual, intimate and undistorted relationship with God and others. The power of Jesus’ story for post moderns is that He maintained ontological coherence while dealing with the challenge and tension of his “ideal” and “real” self. He conquers the tension inside him by responding to and nurturing his relationship with the “Other.” Jesus then shows how his “ideal” self is realized in his embrace of others. Meals, encounters and relationships for Jesus were viewed as “thick” encounters where the heart of others can be embraced and the “ideal” of humanity made possible.
Mann then offers the story of Judas as an important story for post-moderns because it reveals the lengths and effect of ontological incoherence. Judas withdraws from the “Other” and others do the same to Judas. The only one who doesn’t is Jesus and this is the importance of Jesus’ story for the post-modern. Even when individuals betray themselves, others and God, Jesus provides reconciliation in the face of betrayal. The fear of the post-modern is the death that accompanies living for the other. Jesus’ story then shows the possibility of achieving ontological coherence by dying to the self and living for the “Other.” Jesus’ story is like Judas’ story except that Judas’ death leads him into alienation and does not recover relationship. Jesus’ death redeems life and brings people back into relationship: mutual, undistorted, unpolluted relating. If the church can convey the Jesus’ story with sensitivity to the post-modern, they can be convinced that following Jesus through death [symbolically] can result in authentic living for the “Other.” Such living results in ontological coherence. [sense of wholeness in one’s being]
Mann feels that the Eucharist [or communion for the free church tradition] can give post-moderns the opportunity to live through the story of Jesus and be part of his story in a way where they are caught up in it and so achieve a re-orientation of life based on Jesus’ death and resurrection. It is important to focus the ritual on the things that Jesus emphasized: life, recovery and wholeness rather than alienation and confession. The opportunity to be emotionally involved in the ritual is important to offer post-moderns because the remembrance most certainly addresses how they feel and gives opportunity to embrace that emotion and lead the individual to forgiveness and acceptance.
The traditional approaches to sin in the Eucharist liturgy do not associate sin with the wrong done to the self. Post-moderns are individuals who have been “sinned” against. They also flounder in their failure relationally. In this state they are “pre-moral.” The Eucharist needs to draw them in by focusing on redemption. Once they’re in the story, then confession and renewal are possible. The table must be a non-judgmental table of fellowship that can be approached with out fear of exposure and exclusion. The table, like the cross, should be the place where the presence of mutual, undistorted, unpolluted relating is realized. The Eucharist, then, is the narrative moment that can draw the emerging culture into confession and community and enter into the wholeness of relationship given by Christ.
In the conclusion, Mann emphasizes the role the Holy Spirit plays in realizing ontological coherence through relationship with Jesus. Mann sees that Jesus maintaining ontological coherence was a result of His relationship with the Holy Spirit for our sakes. The Spirit is the one then that gives us a sense of hope of fulfillment of true mutual, unpolluted, undistorted relationship with others and God. “The directedness of our life is now determined” says Mann, “by the pull of the Spirit to completion rather than the pull of sin to dissolution.” Once one is accepted by God, it follows that one accepts oneself and achieves the intimate relationship that is so deeply sought by post-moderns. In this sense, salvation present in such a context can truly liberate the post-modern and be heard by the emerging culture.
Critique
The great feature of this book is that the publisher encouraged Mann to respond to the critique of the book by an outside source. Robin Parry, commissioning editor for Paternoster Press, offers his response to Mann’s book that can be used as a catalyst for further dialogue. It is important to take note of Parry’s clarification concerning what Mann has set out to do:
I appreciate the fact that Alan offers his account not as the account of atonement for all people, everywhere, nor as a replacement for alternative more traditional accounts (although he does question the relevance of such accounts in our context). Rather it is offered as an account of atonement which will enable some postmodern people to be reconciled to God, others and themselves. (p.189)
Mann does an excellent job at attempting another view of the atonement that bears relevancy in the present cultural context. We so desperately need fresh views of the atonement that factor into them the present state of heart and mind in the post-modern community and still remaining true to the biblical narrative.
I also take his approach in hand as I myself attempt to rethink the atonement in light of the biblical narrative. Our “thin” approach has borne an assumption of the penal substitutionary atonement theory as the pre-eminent theory that gives explanation to the biblical view of salvation. What has caused this theory to last so long is the reformation heralding of justification by faith as the controlling theme of the Pauline corpus and subsequently of the early NT church. There are many at present taking this to task, not in terms of jettisoning it, but of setting it within a fuller [and I dare say “thicker”] context of what Paul and the early NT writers were conveying in regard to salvation.
Recently, a more sensitive approach to Hebrew theological perspectives on salvation and worldview has influenced the explanation of what it is God has set out to do in our world through Jesus. N.T. Wright has especially broadened this view through his writings. What it means to be a follower of Christ in the fuller sense of what God is doing revealed in the biblical narrative is prompting discussions of what salvation means. God gathering people into one new reconstituted people of God is the “meta-narrative” that brings a “thicker” meaning to the atonement. What it means to be truly human then finds a major place in the significance of salvation thus warranting an address at rethinking how we might communicate the atonement to reflect this “thicker” view. I think Mann is then on the right track when he places the emphasis of salvation on the issue of belonging.
The one issue I take to task along with Parry is Mann’s stress on biblical narrative having the same influence as “myth” in ancient story telling where truths were embedded in fictional stories to paint a picture that the reader or listener can identify with. Although I believe unintentional, it does sound like Mann is not as concerned about the biblical narrative’s historical relevance as he is concerned about the meaning of the story. Some readers may take this to task and be concerned about Mann’s view of the bible as a historical piece of literature. In my estimation, Mann does not adequately address Parry’s critique. Although Mann draws on the academic argument that history is essentially the record of the interpretation of eyewitnesses, they are still records indeed. The gospels bear a “story among others” but also are evidence of memoirs of eyewitnesses of which historians and theologians consider reliable. These eyewitness accounts carry with them a powerful story in context that influenced communities. In this case, they are not fiction like the mythical stories that have truth in them. In the post-modern context, this still is a distinction that bears noting and something that does matter. Yet, Mann’s point of the influence of biblical narrative is not lost in this apposite discussion.
I don’t have as much a concern as Parry does regarding the apparent insignificance of the cross in Mann’s approach. Mann himself alludes to no intention on his part to diminish the cross. The cross is still significant in that it is the vehicle through which Jesus accomplished ontological coherence for humanity. Parry reacts because the traditional reformed approach has so placed the cross at the center that the other equally important aspects of Jesus’ work such as his life, death, resurrection and ascension have taken a back seat to it. Mann’s approach demands that we reconsider these as equally important aspects of Jesus’ work in God’s plan of salvation.
I’m not so sure that in a global sense, the shift from guilt to shame that we presently see in our own culture is true for every other culture. In fact, historically, certain cultures have exemplified a fixation on shame rather than guilt. Guilt based cultures are very much secluded to the western world and even then some western countries are more shame based than guilt based. Shame and the concepts of “keeping face” and “honour” are very prevalent in Asian-Indo cultures. These cultures have not experienced the western shift from modernity to post-modernity. It would be interesting to note how views of the atonement in cultures that are historically shame based are communicated. This may give some indication as to how views of the atonement are truly affected by cultural implications.
No doubt, Mann’s book will figure significantly in the continuing dialogue, if not having instigated it, then definitely having added a significant perspective to the discussions on atonement and its relevance to the emerging culture.
By Luciano Lombardi
Associate Dean
Master’s College and Seminary Toronto, Ontario
Luciano.Lombardi@mcs.edu
Luciano has been thinking that the emerging culture is not breaking down the doors of the traditional church and so is looking for ways to convey the good news of Christ to those in his culture who don’t respond to the traditional approaches of salvation. In his spare time, he oversees the Distance Education program at Master’s College and Seminary as well as teaches in the area of bible and theology.
Among the myriad of literature coming out of the emerging culture dialogue, Alan Mann’s recent book has cause for all of us to take notice. Based on his Master’s degree thesis, Mann offers a view of the atonement that can be heard by those of the emerging culture. He rightly states that we are well overdue for an update on the explanation of atonement and salvation that addresses the issues faced by individuals in our culture.
Review
Given that older models of the atonement are no longer being heard by the emerging culture, Mann attempts to answer two very important questions:
How do post-modern, post-industrialized, post-Christian people see themselves? And what influence will that have on the theological task of making the gospel heard? These are the huge questions with myriad of answers, but they are also the questions of culture and context that the church has always faced. (p. 4)
In his exegesis of emerging culture, he determines that the culture is a “sinless” society. The views of the atonement that address the issues of sin and guilt find no ground to settle on in the heart and mind of those living in this culture. Mann suggests that our culture has semantically altered the definition of sin from its Victorian meaning to identifying with what brings pleasure in life. What is wrong in humanity has shifted to an “absence of mutual, intimate, undistorted relating” which becomes the source of “ontological incoherence.”
This sense of “ontological incoherence” or more simply put “a broken sense of being” causes shame rather than guilt. Therefore, sin finds its root in our culture in the sense of shame in the individual who feels they do not measure up and cannot attain the “ideal” life they are looking for. This ideal life is characterized as the attainment of mutual, intimate, undistorted relating.” Drawing on his research in the area of Narrative Therapy in psychology circles, Mann describes this inability to attain the “ideal” life as a vicious circle where the individual desires relationship but because they focus on the self rather than the other, there is a breakdown in relationship which results in a feeling of isolation and a sense of no meaning and connection in life.
Mann describes this disconnection as a broken ability to relate to the “Other.” This “other” is a reference to God and to others in life. Such an unawareness of the “Other” results in what Mann calls a “pre-social and pre-moral” existence for the person living in the emerging culture. Because there is no awareness of God and life is lived in pre-occupation with the self, explanations of atonement as forgiveness for sin against God and others is virtually incomprehensible. The church needs to re-orient its explanation of atonement using a solid biblical basis for addressing the problem of shame. The focus of atonement needs to shift from “forgiveness” to “acceptance.” The shift is subtle but yet significant in making the message of atonement comprehensible to the post-modern.
Mann emphasizes that appropriating salvation needs to move from a “confession” of sin and guilt to a sense of “cleansing that leads to belonging.” In this way, the issue of broken relationship is addressed, rather than the issue of infraction against God. Given this, he feels that the images of “ritual cleansing” can find a place again in the church’s liturgy. Salvation then is not so much a response to a crisis [“I’ve done something against God”] for a post-modern but a patient process over time where shame is abated and inclusion into community is accomplished. [“I can have mutual, intimate, undistorted relationship”]
The concept then for communicating salvation is not propositional truth but rather narrative. Story has replaced truth and fact as the communication of reality. Post-moderns are caught up in a series of smaller stories. They are searching for a meta-narrative and very sceptical as they do so while looking in the rear view mirror at a meta-narrative of modernity that has proved untrue. Although sceptical of meta-narrative, Mann emphasizes that post-moderns need an alternative narrative to make sense of their own stories. The church should offer such a meta-narrative not as an argument against but rather the telling of its own story in the sea of stories that present themselves as options. This then is an act of letting God use the encounter of our story telling to communicate truth and reality.
Mann finds that what is missing for the post-modern is a sense of “Other.” With out God in their worldview, a meta-narrative can never truly make ultimate sense. If the shame of ontological incoherence [or broken sense of being] is ever to be dealt with, the presence and importance of “Other” must enter the meta-narrative of the post-modern. It is the only way that the pre-occupation with the self can be altered to a biblical sense of belonging to the “Other.”
Following the pattern of therapeutic narrative, Mann encourages the offering of “counter narratives,” much like the ancient world used “myth,” to give post-moderns an alternative story to place themselves in besides the broken story that they personally live in. It is in this sense that Mann feels the church has let the post-modern down. Using the concepts of “thick” and “thin” story telling, the church has offered a “thin” explanation that has simplified salvation to one basic propositional infraction and a resultant event that cures it. A “thick” [complex and intricate communication] retelling of the story needs to replace the “thin one single all encompassing modern telling of salvation.” Mann suggests that this is not difficult since the bible itself communicates a “thick” telling of the story.
What is significant in the retelling of the biblical story is that “ontological coherence” is achieved in the person of Jesus. The post-modern has the opportunity to see their “ideal” self in the person of Jesus of Nazareth who lives in mutual, intimate and undistorted relationship with God and others. The power of Jesus’ story for post moderns is that He maintained ontological coherence while dealing with the challenge and tension of his “ideal” and “real” self. He conquers the tension inside him by responding to and nurturing his relationship with the “Other.” Jesus then shows how his “ideal” self is realized in his embrace of others. Meals, encounters and relationships for Jesus were viewed as “thick” encounters where the heart of others can be embraced and the “ideal” of humanity made possible.
Mann then offers the story of Judas as an important story for post-moderns because it reveals the lengths and effect of ontological incoherence. Judas withdraws from the “Other” and others do the same to Judas. The only one who doesn’t is Jesus and this is the importance of Jesus’ story for the post-modern. Even when individuals betray themselves, others and God, Jesus provides reconciliation in the face of betrayal. The fear of the post-modern is the death that accompanies living for the other. Jesus’ story then shows the possibility of achieving ontological coherence by dying to the self and living for the “Other.” Jesus’ story is like Judas’ story except that Judas’ death leads him into alienation and does not recover relationship. Jesus’ death redeems life and brings people back into relationship: mutual, undistorted, unpolluted relating. If the church can convey the Jesus’ story with sensitivity to the post-modern, they can be convinced that following Jesus through death [symbolically] can result in authentic living for the “Other.” Such living results in ontological coherence. [sense of wholeness in one’s being]
Mann feels that the Eucharist [or communion for the free church tradition] can give post-moderns the opportunity to live through the story of Jesus and be part of his story in a way where they are caught up in it and so achieve a re-orientation of life based on Jesus’ death and resurrection. It is important to focus the ritual on the things that Jesus emphasized: life, recovery and wholeness rather than alienation and confession. The opportunity to be emotionally involved in the ritual is important to offer post-moderns because the remembrance most certainly addresses how they feel and gives opportunity to embrace that emotion and lead the individual to forgiveness and acceptance.
The traditional approaches to sin in the Eucharist liturgy do not associate sin with the wrong done to the self. Post-moderns are individuals who have been “sinned” against. They also flounder in their failure relationally. In this state they are “pre-moral.” The Eucharist needs to draw them in by focusing on redemption. Once they’re in the story, then confession and renewal are possible. The table must be a non-judgmental table of fellowship that can be approached with out fear of exposure and exclusion. The table, like the cross, should be the place where the presence of mutual, undistorted, unpolluted relating is realized. The Eucharist, then, is the narrative moment that can draw the emerging culture into confession and community and enter into the wholeness of relationship given by Christ.
In the conclusion, Mann emphasizes the role the Holy Spirit plays in realizing ontological coherence through relationship with Jesus. Mann sees that Jesus maintaining ontological coherence was a result of His relationship with the Holy Spirit for our sakes. The Spirit is the one then that gives us a sense of hope of fulfillment of true mutual, unpolluted, undistorted relationship with others and God. “The directedness of our life is now determined” says Mann, “by the pull of the Spirit to completion rather than the pull of sin to dissolution.” Once one is accepted by God, it follows that one accepts oneself and achieves the intimate relationship that is so deeply sought by post-moderns. In this sense, salvation present in such a context can truly liberate the post-modern and be heard by the emerging culture.
Critique
The great feature of this book is that the publisher encouraged Mann to respond to the critique of the book by an outside source. Robin Parry, commissioning editor for Paternoster Press, offers his response to Mann’s book that can be used as a catalyst for further dialogue. It is important to take note of Parry’s clarification concerning what Mann has set out to do:
I appreciate the fact that Alan offers his account not as the account of atonement for all people, everywhere, nor as a replacement for alternative more traditional accounts (although he does question the relevance of such accounts in our context). Rather it is offered as an account of atonement which will enable some postmodern people to be reconciled to God, others and themselves. (p.189)
Mann does an excellent job at attempting another view of the atonement that bears relevancy in the present cultural context. We so desperately need fresh views of the atonement that factor into them the present state of heart and mind in the post-modern community and still remaining true to the biblical narrative.
I also take his approach in hand as I myself attempt to rethink the atonement in light of the biblical narrative. Our “thin” approach has borne an assumption of the penal substitutionary atonement theory as the pre-eminent theory that gives explanation to the biblical view of salvation. What has caused this theory to last so long is the reformation heralding of justification by faith as the controlling theme of the Pauline corpus and subsequently of the early NT church. There are many at present taking this to task, not in terms of jettisoning it, but of setting it within a fuller [and I dare say “thicker”] context of what Paul and the early NT writers were conveying in regard to salvation.
Recently, a more sensitive approach to Hebrew theological perspectives on salvation and worldview has influenced the explanation of what it is God has set out to do in our world through Jesus. N.T. Wright has especially broadened this view through his writings. What it means to be a follower of Christ in the fuller sense of what God is doing revealed in the biblical narrative is prompting discussions of what salvation means. God gathering people into one new reconstituted people of God is the “meta-narrative” that brings a “thicker” meaning to the atonement. What it means to be truly human then finds a major place in the significance of salvation thus warranting an address at rethinking how we might communicate the atonement to reflect this “thicker” view. I think Mann is then on the right track when he places the emphasis of salvation on the issue of belonging.
The one issue I take to task along with Parry is Mann’s stress on biblical narrative having the same influence as “myth” in ancient story telling where truths were embedded in fictional stories to paint a picture that the reader or listener can identify with. Although I believe unintentional, it does sound like Mann is not as concerned about the biblical narrative’s historical relevance as he is concerned about the meaning of the story. Some readers may take this to task and be concerned about Mann’s view of the bible as a historical piece of literature. In my estimation, Mann does not adequately address Parry’s critique. Although Mann draws on the academic argument that history is essentially the record of the interpretation of eyewitnesses, they are still records indeed. The gospels bear a “story among others” but also are evidence of memoirs of eyewitnesses of which historians and theologians consider reliable. These eyewitness accounts carry with them a powerful story in context that influenced communities. In this case, they are not fiction like the mythical stories that have truth in them. In the post-modern context, this still is a distinction that bears noting and something that does matter. Yet, Mann’s point of the influence of biblical narrative is not lost in this apposite discussion.
I don’t have as much a concern as Parry does regarding the apparent insignificance of the cross in Mann’s approach. Mann himself alludes to no intention on his part to diminish the cross. The cross is still significant in that it is the vehicle through which Jesus accomplished ontological coherence for humanity. Parry reacts because the traditional reformed approach has so placed the cross at the center that the other equally important aspects of Jesus’ work such as his life, death, resurrection and ascension have taken a back seat to it. Mann’s approach demands that we reconsider these as equally important aspects of Jesus’ work in God’s plan of salvation.
I’m not so sure that in a global sense, the shift from guilt to shame that we presently see in our own culture is true for every other culture. In fact, historically, certain cultures have exemplified a fixation on shame rather than guilt. Guilt based cultures are very much secluded to the western world and even then some western countries are more shame based than guilt based. Shame and the concepts of “keeping face” and “honour” are very prevalent in Asian-Indo cultures. These cultures have not experienced the western shift from modernity to post-modernity. It would be interesting to note how views of the atonement in cultures that are historically shame based are communicated. This may give some indication as to how views of the atonement are truly affected by cultural implications.
No doubt, Mann’s book will figure significantly in the continuing dialogue, if not having instigated it, then definitely having added a significant perspective to the discussions on atonement and its relevance to the emerging culture.
By Luciano Lombardi
Associate Dean
Master’s College and Seminary Toronto, Ontario
Luciano.Lombardi@mcs.edu
Luciano has been thinking that the emerging culture is not breaking down the doors of the traditional church and so is looking for ways to convey the good news of Christ to those in his culture who don’t respond to the traditional approaches of salvation. In his spare time, he oversees the Distance Education program at Master’s College and Seminary as well as teaches in the area of bible and theology.
posted by Luciano Lombardi at 1:33 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home