Is it possible that Jesus death was nothing more than the perfect example of selfless love?
As Easter approaches, and Christians around the world begin to celebrate and commemorate Christ's death and resurrection, I'm reminded that there will always be people apparently within the fold who will nevertheless question the historical understanding of what was accomplished on that weekend long ago. Traditionally Jesus' sacrifice on the cross has been understood through the lens of "penal substitutionary atonement." In simple terms, the traditional view is that our rebellion from God, and everything that separates us from God's perfection (what we call "sin"), required a punishment. So God, in his great mercy, and Jesus, in his great love, came up with a solution: it would be the solution of the substitute. If Jesus, in his perfection, paid the penalty for our sin, then we could be reconciled to God. For us to be reconciled to God (atoned for), we need someone who would stand in (substitute) to pay our penalty (penal).
It is shocking to me that there remains in the Christian church a group of people who would wish to redefine this and reframe it so that it appears to make more sense to our modern sensibilities. Today the group would bill themselves as "progressive" Christians, but it's just another name for what has historically been referred to as "liberal theology". It's an attempt to whittle down Christianity to "good deeds", as if this was Jesus ultimate goal: just to get us to act right. The reason I'm continually shocked by it is because of the glaringly obvious fallacy that it presents, particularly as it relates to the cross of Jesus.
The assertion of an article circulating this week is that Jesus message was ultimately only about love, and so Jesus death on the cross could not have had anything to do with penal substitutionary atonement. In fact, if that is what the cross was about, this author wanted nothing to do with Jesus.
The argument goes something like this (and again, it's just rehashing an old argument): Jesus whole goal in his life and death was to demonstrate that the heart of the law is simply "love". Therefore, when the Bible says that Jesus fulfilled the law, what it means is that demonstrated what it means to live out the heart of the law, which meant standing up to the power structures, living for the oppressed, and ultimately, on the cross, giving up his life for a friend. Jesus death, then, was the ultimate example of selfless love. This is what he requires of Christians. God's not mad, he's just trying to get us to love one another. Jesus showed us that by his death, and so now we should go and live that out and do what he did.
The logical fallacy that is presented by this argument has to do with the very nature of our reconciliation with God, if such a concept exists at all in this theological construct. Even this progressive author agrees that sin has separated us from God; in fact, this is the extent of the definition of sin: whatever separates us from God. So far, so good. But then the question is raised: if we are separated from God, how is it that we go about becoming reconciled to him? The issue with the argument outlined above is that you are left with only one of two options: either everyone is reconciled to God, or no one is ever reconciled to God.
The truth is that no matter how loving we wish to be, the reality is that we will still fall short. Every person, every Christian, no matter how loving they try to be or actually are knows that they don't measure up to the example set by Christ. If it were possible that some other figure, a non-divinity, some purely human character, could have eventually met the standard, then we wouldn't have needed the example of Christ. Even if it were only by pure accident, surely over time one person would have gotten close, and someone else gotten closer, and on and on until eventually we figured out that the "law" really only intended us to get to the heart of the law, which is love. This is the nature of human progression, after all. We see something that works, or looks better than what we already know, and we build upon it to progress forward. Surely the same thing would be true of our ability to meet the law and live in harmony with how God requires.
The very fact of Jesus existence reveals that this is clearly not the case. We won't eventually "figure it out". Even this construct admits that an example was needed, and a perfect one at that. A model that we could follow. Someone who made the ultimate sacrifice, and gave his life for a friend. Now, according to this model, the Christian must replicate that with their own lives. Yet anyone who is honest enough to admit it knows that they are a poor example, at best.
Again, Jesus may have showed us the way to reconciliation, but it is nevertheless on us to ensure that we live out that path if we actually want to attain the reconciliation. If Christ's death on the cross did nothing for me other than provide me with an example, my confidence is not found in what he did but in my own ability to replicate what he did in some meaningful way in my own life. "Salvation" is found in my ability to live out the same type of life, to the same degree, as Jesus did. As was already pointed out, we all fall ridiculously short of that mark. To say otherwise is to be a fool.
So then we are left with only two options. Either God, in his mercy, for no reason other than because he realized that we were eternally screwed otherwise, has decided to save us all and we all are okay at the end of the day. No justification required. Just a blank slate, wiped clean, just because. The alternative is that we are all left striving to attain a perfection which none of us can; we are chasing a dream that will never be realized. In other words, it's back to the original conclusion: either everyone is saved, or no one is saved.
Herein lies the fallacy of this theology and where it breaks down. Aside from the fact that none of this is particularly good news, since all it does is shine a light on my own failures, there is another inherent problem. If everyone is saved, then there is no law at all. Even Jesus perfect life (which, again, matters to me not one whit) was totally and utterly meaningless if God was going to just wipe the slate clean anyway regardless. Everyone being saved sounds great. It sounds like a very loving thing of God to do, but in reality it is a chaotic sort of anti-loving God that would allow that to occur. It's a God without order, a God who doesn't give us any meaningful guide by which we should live because ultimately, obey or not obey, we end up in the same position. But then, if no one is saved, we have the same issue: if I am as loving as I can possibly be, but I will still fall short, then what is the point of even trying? I am imperfect as it is, and there is no hope of my reconciliation, then I may as well enjoy myself in the process.
The only possible responses to this are to say, either, that a) it is actually possible for a human to attain some semblance of perfection, or something that is acceptable to God so that ultimately not everyone is saved but he will save each of us on our own merits, or b) Jesus actually did accomplish something meaningful on my behalf that enables me to live the type of life that he calls me to live, without guilt or shame.
There is no in-between answer to these two things, if we claim to be a Christian. If Christ's life and death accomplished nothing on my behalf, then my reconciliation to God must be found in my own merits, or else, nothing about God's law matters at all. This was precisely the belief of the religious leaders of the day when Jesus arrived on the scene. Each person would be judged on their own merits. It's why the religious folks were self-righteous and the tax-collectors and sinners were outsides. This was the message of the power structure of Rome: as soon as you didn't perform according to their standards, they booted you out and killed you. The reason Jesus message was such good news to those desperate ears–and the reason the power structure hated him–was because they had already been told that their justification was up to them, and they found it to be terribly oppressive; Jesus message was just the opposite. "The only way to be reconciled to my Father is to go through me."
The truth is that no serious theologian denies that Jesus fulfilled the law. He did fulfill the law through his perfect life including and up to his death on the cross. The heart of the law is this: that we would love God (perfectly) and love others (perfectly). The law only serves to demonstrate that we, on our own power, cannot accomplish what we want to accomplish. But God, in his great mercy, sends a substitute. This substitute fulfills the law on our behalf by living a perfect life. This substitute pays the penalty for being a law-breaker on our behalf by dying an absolutely gruesome but perfect death on the cross. As a result, this substitute breaks the grip of death–separation from God and from one another–and rises from the dead on the third day. Salvation is found in no one but him.
Now we find that our justification, our righteousness, our goodness, our perfection, are all applied to us because of Jesus substitution on our behalf. He takes what we deserved and gives us what he earned. The irony of it all is that the decision we face is precisely the one that the progressive theologian has said we shouldn't have to answer at all, and it is this: will you put your confidence in the merits of Christ, or in the merits of yourself? The good news is that we can put our confidence in the merits of Christ. This is the what it means to have faith.
The alternative is to go on trusting in your own merits. And if you are, then I wonder what the standards are by which you are assessing your own goodness. If it is your own standard, then what does Jesus matter to you? There is no need to follow Jesus if you get to set your own standards. But if the standard by which you assess your own merit is Gods–that is, if your standard is the law of God–then how can you go on trusting your own ability? The good news is that you don't have to, because Jesus has already met the standard, and reconciled your failure, on your behalf, so you can be free.
This is the meaning of the cross.