Abuse and the Atonement

[Anonymous]

I understand and actually agree, mackay11, about how to address this with most people in most settings. Most people automatically jump to assuming “blame” whenever “involved” or “transgression” are mentioned, when there simply shouldn’t be any level of blame attached automatically to either word. Based on our theology, both terms can be neutral, but too few people understand that.

I intentionally framed the post in theological terms for two reasons:

1) We have the ability in our theology (unlike most other denominations and religions) to “settle” this issue in theological terms, even if we don’t use those terms generally in talking about the issue;

2) I knew I would have plenty of time and space to clarify and answer concerns, unlike most situations and certainly unlike most church settings. If I was approaching this in any church setting, I would start with the basics (like cwald’s summary and your last phrasing) and go into more depth gradually only if I was getting understanding and agreement. I think the mistake in having this conversation in that type of setting would be going too far, rather than not going far enough. I’m completely fine with not going far enough to be comprehensive, if by doing so I avoid misunderstanding. I’d rather have partial understanding than misunderstanding.

This sort of setting is different, since I know I can put out there the more theologically complex version and then clarify by “moving backward” to the simple, so to speak – and since starting with the simple very well might not have led to the full theological explanation I wanted to give.

Fwiw, if I was going to tackle this in a church setting, part of the “basics” with which I would start is the act of defining the terms “transgression” and “involved” very carefully to set the stage for the rest of the discussion – and I would be explicit that “blame” is inappropriate in the way I would be using the words. As I said, I’d start with something like your and cwald’s summaries and set the “language stage” carefully first.

I actually have had this basic discussion in-person (verbally and with visual aids) more than once. I’ve never had major problems with verbal, in-person discussions, since I can read people and proceed accordingly in that type of situation – going as slowly and carefully and to whatever stopping point I want.

[Anonymous]

Well, the crucifixion is ugly and gruesome enough, but for me it’s an official execution (albeit EXTREMELY painful).

Jesus was spat on, beaten up and kicked around the street, whipped and sliced up with knives, had thorns pressed into his skin and placed on his head, mocked etc and even had people gambling for his belongings, this occurred all before he went on the cross. That’s abuse. These actions alone would have killed him.

As for sexual abuse, it’s not mentioned, but a lot of people say that Jesus was naked or nearly naked when crucified, so rude remarks were probably made about that as well.

[Author]

Posts