| Cosmic Child Abuse? |
| Thursday, 15 May 2008 | |
|
I'm hearing more and more people describe Jesus' death on the cross as "cosmic child abuse". The gist of the thinking is that God the Father forced His Son Jesus Christ to die on the cross for sins he did not commit. I think this discussion raises some things that are true. For example:
Set as favorite Bookmark
Email This
Hits: 573 Trackback(0)
Comments (22)
 
I would like to think of it more as a cosmic model of surrender to an almighty, all holy, all loving God.
1 report abuse
vote down
vote up
May 15, 2008
Votes: +0 
My understanding is that the charge of divine child abuse only applies to those views of the atonement which center on God pouring out his wrath on his son. Other models (like Denny Weaver's Nonviolent Atonement, or the Christus Victor model) don't place God in the role of punisher.
2 report abuse
vote down
vote up
May 15, 2008
Votes: +0 
I remember encountering this view in seminary in the early 1990s, and hearing it preached in a sermon in I think 1992, but haven't noticed it much since then; I guess it is still prevalent after all in some circles. I thought then and think now that for a Trinitarian Christian who believes wholeheartedly in the Incarnation, the "child abuse" critique is incoherent. It posits one being punishing a different, unwilling being, which is something completely different from, e.g., the kind of freely chosen kenosis of deity described in Phil 2.
3 report abuse
vote down
vote up
May 15, 2008
Votes: +0 
The "cosmic child abuse" idea doesn't make sense to me--especially when we humans were the ones doing the "abusing". I see it instead as a most powerful expression of God's love for us.
4 report abuse
vote down
vote up
May 15, 2008
Votes: +0 
I've heard the cosmic child abuse idea a lot from evangelists: Humans sin; the vengeful, angry Father wants to kill sin; Jesus steps in and says, "No Father, don't kill the humans, kill Me;" the Father does; and now He's not angry anymore. Not only is that properly cosmic child abuse, but the Father is a psycho. Who on earth would want to follow a psycho? Or could love Him, unless they were psychotic themselves?
Obviously I'm not a fan of this idea. I think the problem comes when we overemphasize the Trinity to the point that we forget God is One. It's God who wanted to redeem humanity; it's God who became human; it's God who died on the cross. Of course, God is complex beyond our understanding, and so He's both a Son and a Father and the Son happened to have a moment of cold feet where He said, "Is there any way I can get out of this?" which is so very human of Him. But regardless of any mind-bending distinction of persons, it's still God on the cross, and God was ultimately (though likely not at that moment) pleased to do it. 5 report abuse
vote down
vote up
May 15, 2008
Votes: +0 
Hi Elaine,
Thanks for your thoughts. Was good to catch up with the Think Tank yesterday. 6 report abuse
vote down
vote up
May 16, 2008
Votes: +0
Mark Van Steenwyk,
That is my understanding with Jesus-followers too. But I haven't seen other people make these distinctions. Have you? 7 report abuse
vote down
vote up
May 16, 2008
Votes: +0
Beth,
I have a hard time understanding this charge from a Trinitarian perspective too. But for non-Trinitarians I suppose its a different struggle. 8 report abuse
vote down
vote up
May 16, 2008
Votes: +0
Kievas Fargo,
Good point. Thanks for sharing. 9 report abuse
vote down
vote up
May 16, 2008
Votes: +0 
I think that accusation relates to the "penal substitution" theory of the atonement.
I've heard it from someone who subscribed to that theory. He was preaching to the youth of our church, and told them "You see those signs that say, 'Smile, God loves you'? That's not true. God doesn't love you, God is angry with you because you are a sinner. God was so angry that he killed his son." That makes it sound like cosmic child abuse, and yes, I really did hear that guy preach that stuff. 10 report abuse
vote down
vote up
May 16, 2008
Votes: +0
I think it is cosmic child abuse to say those things to a youth group!
11 report abuse
vote down
vote up
May 16, 2008
Votes: +0 
John:
I'll chime in on my thoughts. In one of my Friday Finds Link roundups, I refer to an excellent article about this charge. Deborah Berkley writes an excellent rebuttal and explores the richness of the atonement theory. She offers 5 objections and answers. http://www.evangelismcoach.org...-bit-early http://takingthering.blogspot....-news.html Chris Walker http://www.evangelismcoach.org 12 report abuse
vote down
vote up
May 17, 2008
Votes: +0 
Theology aside, and merely studying the text to derive life lessons, I would ask, what is the lesson? Particularly measuring it with Paul’s explanation for scripture: “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness”
It certainly does not teach about justice, self accountability, responsibility and uprightness, even when the example is no longer the corrupt human-kind but when this is also extended to the divine, especially when the testimony is ended with words asking why was he forsaken. Lets be honest, there are aspects in the moments leading to Jesus’ (peace be upon him) reported death by Jesus himself, that suggests he was not a totally willing participant, which cannot be simply ignored. As this is what present the picture of victimization and those who speak of cosmic child abuse has seized on this. To brush this aside and chalk it up to some uncomprehendable enigma that a human being can never understand does little to advance an intelligible counter argument by those who espouse this. 13 report abuse
vote down
vote up
May 18, 2008
Votes: +0 
The Charge of Cosmic Child Abuse could only stick if Jesus were abused.
Jesus is just as much The Almighty God as The Father and Holy Spirit are. It was his love of the Father and his love for us that took him to the cross. After all we are reminded that God is Love. It is part of the very nature of Jesus in his essense. I don't say this was easy for him. I just say that what he did flowed out of his nature and his desires. For the joy set before him he endured the cross. He didn't have to die. No one could make him. He said no one takes his life from him but that he lays it down. He further tells us he lays it down and he picks it up again. I can't answer the question as why there could be no remission of sins without the shedding of blood. I simply accept it as truth and believe that some day that I will understand this. However, it simply not possible for Our Heavenly Father to be guilty of the "Sin" of child abuse or anything that is unrighteous. 14 report abuse
vote down
vote up
May 19, 2008
Votes: +0 
The problem is the doctrine of substitutionary atonement. Once I began to embrace a more nuanced view of the cross, including an understanding of the death of Christ as a courageous confrontation of the powers that exposed their weakness, I got over any concerns about atonement. There is also the aspect of Jesus' death as a warning to Israel (70 AD came along and...) and a few other ways of looking at the cross that rarely get mentioned in evangelical circles.
Definitely not child abuse. Jesus knew what he was doing, even if by faith, and found in his death the fulfillment of his earthly vocation. 15 report abuse
vote down
vote up
May 19, 2008
Votes: +0 
Somewhat different to what others have expressed here, my experience is that the cosmic child abuse charge is at its sharpest where two things occure, where (1) the doctrine of substitutionary atonement is preached, where (2) an inadequate understanding of the Trinity exists.
So in contrast to K.W. Leslie, I don't think the Trinity can be emphasized enough. It is impossible to over-emphasize it. But by that I mean that a fully orbed understanding of Trinity leads us to deep appreciation of the oneness of God. I think what K.W. Leslie is critiquing would be better thought of as Tri-theism. It is tri-theism which is the problem. But, if I am correct, this should lead to some deep questioning of how we go about evangelism in a post-Christian culture. Because the more non-Christian you are, the more you are going to have an inadequate understanding of the Trinity, and, following this logic, the more substitutionary atonement is truly going to sound like cosmic child abuse for you. So, I am not denying substitutionary atonement should be taught. What I am saying though is that it is a deeper mystery that should be left till the Trinity is more adequately understood, that it is a teaching possibly best left till POST-CONVERSION in a culture like ours. "But how can you be converted without hearing the gospel?" I hear some ask. "Why are you confusing atonement theology with the gospel?" is my response. Look through the book of Acts and tell me how many times the gospel was presented as substitutionary atonement, then go back and tell me how often the good news was presented as the resurrection of Christ. I recently blogged on this and note that N T Wright has similar thoughts. There are many atonement metaphors used in the Bible, but none of them are the gospel in and of themselves, they are post-resurrection revelations about the deeper implications about the gospel. When Martin Luther rediscovered justification by faith he did so in a culture that was profoundly soaked in Christian (i.e. trinitiarian monotheism) thought. He did not need to worry about explaining the Trinity so much for people to get what he meant about atonement. but that was then, this is now. This gospel as atonement approach might work in revivalist contexts but it is failing in missional ones. 16 report abuse
vote down
vote up
May 20, 2008
Votes: +0 
I suppose that if Jesus had been a child at the time of his crucifixion, this argument might make some sense to me. I think of Isaac on the long walk up Mount Moriah-- he was a child, and some of the heartbreak and horror of that scene stems from that fact. Jesus going to the cross at 33 years old is a very different scenario-- still heartbreaking and horrifying, but not in the same way. Jesus knew precisely what was going to happen and still chose it willingly.
To make it more personal, I'm 31 and if I choose to comply with requests or demands from my parents that harm me in some way, that's on me- not them. Sometimes I do subject myself to pain (emotional) or hardship at the hand of my parents, but that is my choice made out of my desire for a certain outcome. I'm a grown woman, not even remotely divine, and Jesus had two more years on me-- I think he was up to making his own decision. -Allison 17 report abuse
vote down
vote up
May 20, 2008
Votes: +0 
John - I guess it’s hard to treat what is quite a complicated subject like this adequately in a blog format, but here's some of my thoughts anyway.
I guess I'd agree quite a bit with Matt and Mark Van Steenwyk. Denny Weaver's Non-violent Atonement model is not without issues but I think it takes us in interesting directions. Matt is also right that we must try to understand this in a Trinitarian fashion. So Miroslav Volf (who Denny Weaver critiques) takes a Trinitarian angle on God's Wrath in Chapter 4 of Free of Charge. For a good collection of essays on this subject see "Stricken by God: Nonviolent Identification and the Victory of Christ" (Jersak & Hardin eds.). It has an impressive line up including the aforementioned Volf and Weaver, and also NT Wright, Rowan Williams, CFD Moule. This whole issue leaves me with a couple of questions. (1) It this really an issue for the average person on the street? (2) Why has this issue emerged as such an issue in the blogosphere and theological seminaries now, given it has its modern roots in womanist and feminist theologies? (3) given the arguments are all fairly technical how do we avoid just opting for a personal preface rather than a just consideration and appreciation of the differing arguments? I did some blogging on this issue last year (See 13 July, 24 July & 15 July 2007) one of which includes an email response from Denny Weaver to some questions (sorry for the shameless plug for my blog). 18 report abuse
vote down
vote up
May 21, 2008
Votes: +0 
I'd like to address only one of Brodie's 3 questions. He asked, "It this really an issue for the average person on the street?" I take it he's asking whether it is a 'safe' or 'appropriate' subject for the average believer. If the average believer was engaged on this subject and it caused him to stumble in his following of Jesus - then it is indeed unsafe. If the average believer has no intellectual stimulus or curiosity about such subjects - then it might be just considered a waste of our time. As leaders or teachers we are directed to remember that we are given charge over 'sheep'.
19 report abuse
vote down
vote up
May 22, 2008
Votes: +0
In response to Brodie, I don't know about how much of an issue it is for the "average" person on the street but its been an issue for many New Age and Neo Pagan types for a while now. If the seminaries are only just becoming aware of it now that may just be an example of them being behind, yet again.
To clarify my response though, I wasn't advocating non-violent atonement models any more than violent atonement models. I was actually advocating that we have conflated "atonement models" with "the gospel" in a way that has no basis in the New Testament, thus delegitimizing any sort of atonement model being preached as "the gospel". I accept that the New Testament writers employed a variety of atonement models, and yes, I am quite happy to include Christus Victor in my atonement kit bag. I just think that kit bag should be kept in reserve until they have heard the gospel and grappled with that first. 20 report abuse
vote down
vote up
May 23, 2008
Votes: +0
Matt - I think I would be in broad agreement with your appraoch.
21 report abuse
vote down
vote up
May 23, 2008
Votes: +0 
I agree that this view grows out of an inadequate understanding of the Trinity (as far as it can be 'understood'!) It seems to put God and Jesus on opposing sides, which is not at all what Jesus taught. Jesus had perfect unity with his Father - and chose the path of the cross willingly because of the love of God (Father, Son , Spirit).
I think often we need to examine our language and how it can so easily be misconstrued or taken out of context. My view is that the atonement is many-hued. I do believe that substitutionary atonement plays an important role and that our theology of atonement is weakened if we put it to one side. However, I think that a truly rounded 'doctrine of atonement' is one that takes all the 'interpretations' to open our eyes to the amazing fact of what Jesus did for us in the crucifixion AND the incarnation - a sacrifice for our sin, adoption into God's family, victory over evil, a demonstration of God's love, THE example of true humanity etc...a rainbow, not a single band of colour. 22 report abuse
vote down
vote up
June 06, 2008
Votes: +0 Write comment
|
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
