A
PLAIN GUIDE TO ...
Salvation
Traditional claims for Jesus of Nazareth tend to be large, to say the
least. Perhaps largest of all is that those who don't accept Jesus as
"saviour" will be punished by God, both here and in the
afterlife. This doctrine has seldom been questioned until
recently. But today its grip on the human imagination is weakening. It
may well be a notion in terminal decline.
The metaphor of salvation is
probably the best known of all the Christian teachings about Jesus. At
one level it appears quite simple. We all need saving from the bad or
evil things in life and it is Jesus who does this for us.
And that's all we really need to know, as preachers constantly state
in one way or another. Their slogans are variations of, "Jesus
saves" or "Jesus is your saviour".
At another level, the doctrine of salvation produces
considerable problems. First, looking back in history it is clearly an
idea which has undergone many
changes. Second, when it is thought through, it turns out to be difficult to
sustain except as a more or less useful metaphor.
The study of salvation is
generally known as soteriology (from the Greek soter, to save). Historically,
the doctrine of salvation has
taken on multiple meanings
and nuances over time. I can deal here with only a few and even then
mostly in terms of a Western outlook.
[1] The authentic letters of Paul are our earliest
source of Christian teaching. It's clear from these that he regarded
salvation as something which would come in the future (Romans 13.11). In
his letter to the church at Philippi (in the Roman province of
Macedonia in northern Greece) he speaks of Jesus as saviour: " ...
we eagerly wait for our saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ, to come from
heaven" (Philippians 3.20). It has proved difficult to maintain
this view of salvation in recent times. Even the early Church was forced
to adapt its expectations when it became clear that Jesus was not
about to return to earth and take things over.
[2] As the gospels and some of the later New Testament
letters witness, this futuristic idea of salvation changed rapidly. The
gospels contain references to both the future and the past salvation. The author of Mark takes gives
it a future context in 10.23-26. There, Jesus asserts that it's hard for a rich person to live a godly
life. The author then has disciples ask, "Who then will be
saved?" But overall the gospels, written as they were
towards the close of the first century, refer to the death and
resurrection of Jesus as a definitive salvation event in the past. The same
time-frame is to be found in the later non-Pauline letters (such
as Ephesians, 2 Peter and Jude).
From the second century onwards, salvation as a past
event became more
entrenched as a central Christian teaching. Perhaps in line with Paul's
emphasis on the crucifixion, salvation was increasingly focused on the
cross. Alister McGrath thinks that the death of Jesus has been
interpreted in four general (but not mutually exclusive) ways [1].
It has been seen as salvation by sacrifice.
This draws on ancient ideas of placating God by giving up life -
both human and animal. In parts of Africa, animals are still
slaughtered in a sacrificial manner. There the image of sacrifice
still resonates. But for the average person today, it has become
more abstract.
Augustine of Hippo (354-430) pushed the idea of sacrifice as a
substitution. Jesus offered himself "... to the Father in our
place, to redeem us through his offering and sacrifice". This
teaching was taken up and developed until, in the 16th century, it
was central to the Church's teaching. Protestant reformers saw the substitution
as relating to sin. John Pearson in 1659 wrote that the
sacrifice of Jesus "... consisteth in the freeing of the sinner
from a state of sin and eternal death ..." [2].
Sacrifice remains an important metaphor in the Roman Catholic Church
to this day, usually in relation to the Eucharist, which is thought
to somehow re-enact the sacrifice of Jesus.
This idea of sacrifice as an event which has, through some unknown
mechanism, objectively changed history has for a long time been
increasingly difficult to argue for.
Salvation as victory covers a cluster of
similar themes derived from the early Church - victory over sin and
evil, over death and over Satan. The Christus Victor theme
has often been given distinctly military overtones. Modern
approaches have sometimes sought to equate salvation with victory
over human failings. As such, salvation brings new possibilities for
personal maturity and authenticity.
Jesus may in some sense have been victorious despite defeat on the
cross. But thinking people today don't easily accept that his life
can usefully be defined in terms of warfare with, and victory over,
unseen spiritual or demonic powers.
Still alive and well is the doctrine that Jesus'
sacrifice brings salvation through forgiveness of sin. Anselm
(1033-1109) popularised the idea. It depends entirely on accepting
that humanity was created perfect and subsequently degenerated into
a state of sinfulness by breaking God's rues of life or laws. Only God can put this situation right, said
Anselm. This was achieved through the death of the God/Man Jesus. It
was a sort of "satisfaction" for humanity's
sinfulness by a divine person who, as a man himself, represented humanity to the
Father.
Deep at the roots of this rendering of salvation is the modern
difficulty with the idea that Jesus was not entirely human.
Finally, it is possible to regard salvation
as illumination. That is, the life, death and resurrection of
Jesus combine as a unique example to humans. Augustine thought Jesus
was the "demonstration of the love of God" for humanity.
Peter Abelard (1079-1142) developed this further. He thought that
the purpose of Jesus was to "... teach us by word and example
..." to live righteously. Jesus as an example of loving
sacrifice became an important theme in theology. Jesus
was increasingly perceived as a heroic martyr, worthy of imitation.
Friedrich
Schleiermacher (1772-1829) took this further by proposing that
because Jesus had an extraordinarily intimate relationship with God,
he was able to communicate with those around him with great clarity
and power. This accounts for the degree to which people are
captivated by his life and words.
This way of regarding salvation is still usable today. It has given birth to a number
of modern approaches to Jesus and salvation. One such is the proposal that the Jesus is an example of true
human authenticity. We should strive for the same authenticity in our
lives. Those who perceive Jesus as a liberator, for instance, use his
life to urge the political and economic liberation of oppressed peoples.
There is no reason why salvation should not survive as long
as it is useful and meaningful. And there is no reason not to honour and respect
doctrines from the past, even though there is nothing intrinsically authoritative
about them. A large group of Christians
throughout history have held that everyone is saved by God from the
effects of sin regardless of their behaviour and irrespective of whether
they have responded positively to Jesus of Nazareth. Universalism, as
this standpoint is known, was first given convincing form by Origen (185-254), a
theologian from Alexandria in Egypt.
He rejected the idea that reality comprises the dual forces
of good and evil, constantly and eternally at war with each other. He thought that God
would finally destroy all evil and restore creation to its original
perfect state. If this is true, then there is little point in making
much of salvation as traditionally taught, since it is only part of a
total process.
The problem with the universalist approach is that it is
possible that at least one person will always resist God's saving love.
In that case salvation proves incomplete and the world remains divided
into the saved and the damned.
It turns out, then, that salvation is a notion without force
unless some are saved and some are damned. Tolerant, inclusive societies
make heavy weather of a loving God who saves some and damns others. Is
an unforgiving, judgmental God worthy of respect? This God must above
all be feared. There is no room for true human autonomy, since that
might result in eternal damnation. Nobody wants to be roasted in hell
for ever (to use an ancient metaphor).
The traditional teaching that Jesus saved the world is inextricably
linked to the idea of sacrifice. When one puts aside all the theological
verbiage about sacrifice, three main problems emerge:
It has to be asked how the sacrifice of either an animal or human
can objectively make any difference to our world. Isn't the
concept relevant only if we think that something we do somehow
changes God's mind? If that's not what sacrifice achieves, then why
bother with it?
The truth is that many people, perhaps a majority, no longer think
of the world in this way. We now understand that cause and effect
operate in a totally different fashion. Even prayer, a supposed
essential component of the Christian way of life, isn't perceived as
an activity which can in any way change God.
The death of Jesus viewed as a sacrifice might make a difference to
the way you or I view life. But that is a subjective, not an
objective difference. In contrast, an anti-malaria vaccine would
result in an objective change to our world. All sacrifice involves the idea of substitution. An animal is
killed in place of the human sinner. According to traditional
teaching, Jesus dies in our place. He takes on himself the
punishment which should be ours.
In previous eras the common understanding of the world was what we
today call magical. That is, actions in the natural world were able
to impact the supernatural world. Many millions still think that
way.
But for those that don't, the idea of salvation of the many through
the substitution of the one doesn't make much sense. Not only
doesn't it reflect their understanding of the way the world works,
but it also negatively impacts their idea of God.
How can it be, they ask, that a loving, caring, just God can demand
that any person suffer and die merely so that God's anger or outrage
at human sin can be appeased? That sort of God doesn't appear
attractive to many.
Some think that this image of God is an important element in the
decline of Christianity in the West. Bishop John Spong thinks that
this is in part because the doctrine has "... achieved the
status of a sacred mantra" [3]. He
continues: "I would choose to loathe rather than to worship a
deity who required the sacrifice of his son ... we must free Jesus
from his rescuer role ..." Where does the iconic status of the salvation of humanity
through sacrifice come from? It is reasonable to assume that Jesus
would himself have been acutely aware of the cosmic importance of his
impending death. After all, how just would it have been for God to
have imposed this role upon him without his consent?
If that is true, then we might expect to find multiple references by
Jesus in the gospels to his universe-shaking sacrifice for our
salvation, a sacrifice freely taken up and lovingly made.
At first sight, such references do exist in the gospels. Paul
certainly gave this interpretation to the death of Jesus (Romans
5.6-10). But references in the gospels to Jesus as saviour are few
and far between. More importantly, none of the sayings of
Jesus which survive examination for good history mention salvation
through sacrifice.
It is plain that the overwhelming weight of evidence points to the
notion of salvation through sacrifice as an interpretation which
Christians made after the death of Jesus. It is this
interpretation which has been developed over nearly two millennia.
Like all human creations, it is not intrinsically eternal.
None of the above is to say that salvation through human sacrifice is
an invalid way of construing the life and death of Jesus. But it does
raise significant difficulties. And it does imply that other metaphors
used to help understand Jesus are not only potentially valid, but are
also increasingly needed in today's world.
________________________________________________
[1] Christian Theology, Blackwell, 1994
[2] Exposition of the Creed, quoted by McGraw
[3] Why Christianity Must Change or Die,
HarperSanFrancisco, 1999
[Home] [Back]
|
