THE ATONEMENT

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXV, Issue 18536, 5 April 1930, Page 14 (Supplement)

THE ATONEMENT

A MODERN VIEW. The most recent attempt to explain the inner meaning of the death of Christ on the Cross is that of Mr. W. E. Wilson, 8.D., of the Sally Oak Colleges. Birmingham, in “The Problem of the Cross” (writes the Rev. Dr. Ranston in reviewing the new book). A

member of the Society of Friends from his earliest years, he had been repelled by the traditional doctrine of the Atonement which everybody regarded as taught in Scripture and especially so by Paul. Is this belief that it was taught in the Bible well-founded? This book it written to show that it Is not, as well as to give a positive explanation. bp.«£d Upon Christ’s own teaching concerning non-resistance to evil, why the Son of God had died a malefactor’s death.

These facts help to explain both the strength and the weakness of the work. Behind it are not only many years of study, but also Mr Wilson’s personal religious development and the strong Quaker conviction with respect to non-resistance. Consequently, there is ample evidence not merely of genu-

ine learning, but also of the real and deep spiritual insight begotten of religious experience; and further, the significance of Calvary is held up as thoroughly ethical rather than mechanical.

But the author’s religious development, the fact that he had discarded long ago the traditional doctrine of the Atonement, yet found serious difficulty in the belief that it was taught in Scriptures, has, it may be unconsciously, not allowed him to examine

the New Testament teaching with fitting impartiality, or to be altogether just to the common interpretations. Briefly, the results are as follows: — The traditional theories are incredible to the modern mind. They have no solid basis in the New Testment when it is carefully and critically examined, not even in Paul. Repentance Is the one essential procondition of Divine forgiveness, not the death of Christ, which was not an absolute necessity, but one conditional on man. Godward reference is absent from the work of Christ. His sufferings were exemplary to men, and were not required by God. God does not punish men; what is called His wrath is not a law-decrced infliction, but a natural and inevitable working out of the terrible consequence of sin in the destruction of personality. Jesus was wrongly reported when He speaks of Divine retributive punishment. Jesus died because His message and claims brought Him into conflict with the people and religious leaders of the day. His message demanded that He should face His opponents unresistingly, meeting hate with love, even unto the end. Thus God in the person of His Son proved His limitless love to men. Love can conquer enmity only by utter non-re-sistance. Thus man is awakened to repentance and brought to salvation, which was the object of Christ’s coming into human life. The meaning of Christ’s death is that God cures the world’s sin by love carried to the extreme of non-resistance.

Mr Wilson’s view is simply another form of the moral influence theories of the Atonement, and in spite of his slight extension to bring out the necessity of the Cross, shares in the difficulties of all such explanations. While suggestions are made of value, which must be taken into account, the problem of a satisfactory theory of the atoning work of Christ is not yet solved.