Why the Atonement is so hard to discuss. (Warning, this is all Meta)
Today I went back and read a few old posts, and a few things became apparent.
1.) I forget things. Thus every six months or so, I post the same posts over again and say the same things, in a slightly different way, forgetting that Geoff J or Blake or Jacob or somebody and I already had the argument and I lost the argument, but I wasn’t 100% convinced, or I wasn’t 100% clear. My mind can’t focus on and recall all things that aren’t clear and believable. There is too much data in the air for me to do that. It’s a shame that the Atonement, the most important thing in the universe falls in this category.
2.) Language is a major barrier to clarity and understanding. When we talk about the atonement, we often mean different things. Other words we use to break down the atonement also have the same problem. These words include suffering, penalty, sin, and love. There are probably others, but these are the ones I noted in relation to the atonement as sticking points. Without these clearly defined, we even can’t get past what is or isn’t penal substitution (ie- Christ suffers the transfer of sin-energy from us to him in Blake’s theory, is Sin-energy the penalty for Sin?) much less whether this is taught. This language issue is heightened via the internet, because language is all the relationship we have to begin with.
3.) Our Understanding of the Atonement, as the hinge upon which everything turns is dependent on our understanding of the plan of salvation as a whole. While we say that all other things are an appendage to the atonement, the atonement necessarily needs a framework in which to live. Framing the atonement with an ontological gap between God and Man, for example, changes how we think about the atonement. Progression between Kingdoms, Eternal vs. Organized Mind of Man, and our understanding of the fall as either literal or metaphorical can all hamper our understanding of the atonement.
4.) We often obfuscate the issue with analogies. We find something that fits close to our understanding of the facts, or something the “feels good” and then we pore the atonement into the analogy. The problem here becomes not that the analogy is symbolic in nature, but it is more problematic in that the analogy is not a perfect fit, and so theological suppositions are taken away which dismiss the whole of the analogy as problematic. While analogies can help illustrate a point in a devotional sense, they often carry with them problematic components which at a net level, can do more harm than good.
5.) Nay Sayers always seem to pop up and muddy the waters. Every time it feels like I am getting momentum, some jackass (I mean that in the pastoral sense, and not as any sort of swear word, mind you) pops up to remind me that it is impossible to make sense of the atonement due to our finite minds (or some other such garbage). This completely derails the process, introduces contention, and generally has a tendency to kill the thread.
6.) We don’t know what we don’t know. Sometimes, while we are thinking about the atonement, our mind, of its own accord creates speculations and implications which we are not even aware of. This bias may come from other reading we have done, and it may just come from our own natural instinct to fill lacunae. So often, as we express our atonement theories, these base suppositions are shot down, and we struggle, flabbergasted that we can’t find the source for what was previously so obvious to us.
7.) We do know what we don’t know. On another level, we are often very aware of lacunae in our reasoning and develop hypotheses to test in these lacunae. The problem here is that there is no true way to test these hypotheses, and thus we end up either with a multiplicity of ideas, which can be intellectually frustrating, or we end up committing to one or many of these hypotheses, which can be problematic as it disables us from detecting the truth.
8.) We lack the time. As much as we strive to seek first the kingdom of God, we still have little mouths to feed, corporations that need our analyses, customers who expect our support, spouses who want to talk, kids who want to play, and lives that need to be lived. And we all can’t be online at the same time, so sometimes, we don’t respond to every comment, and don’t follow every lead. There just isn’t enough time.
So what can we do to make the situation better? Is there anything we can do? Do we just accept that these obstacles must exist and press on iregardless? (and are there any barriers to discussion I am missing?)
I don’t know why you are so opposed to the idea that the atonement cannot be comprehended by mortals. It’s true that this pov tends to stifle discussion, but after all the fruitless discussion, it seems apparent that no one is any closer to understanding the atonement - as you note. It may be that since it is incomprehensible to mortals, God has given us analogies that will suffice for the present, but are not satisfactory when pushed on the details. After all I have read by yourself, Blake, McConkie et. al., and many others, that position is the only one that makes any sense and gives me any comfort. Otherwise, I cannot get my mind around the notion that the atonement is so incredibly important, but is so amazingly underexplained.
Comment by Jack S. — September 4, 2008 @ 6:54 pm
A certain mindset requires that things be able to be taken apart, understood in their components, and put back together in order to be accepted. I have that mindset myself. The imprecision of our doctrine presents continual challenges. It practically begs to be axiomatized and systematized.
Almost ironically, I take some comfort in Gödel’s incompleteness theorem. If ‘gospel truth’ contains an infinite number of true statements, it follows that it must be either finite and incompletely specified, infinite and completely specified, or approximate. I believe we have a fairly useful and comprehensive set of approximations for many things, and I’m becoming more comfortable with (and often excited by) understanding the gospel by analogies.
Comment by The Right Trousers — September 4, 2008 @ 7:41 pm
Matt W: this is one of my favorite posts ever. I know that might seem a bit strange, but you articulated so well something that has been on my mind for about 2 years. I would not have expressed it so well. I cannot think of anything to add to your list.
“Is there anything we can do?” I stopped worrying. I asked myself, “Why do I care so much about the Atonement?” The answer is of course that it is so important (duh!). But then I asked, “Why do I care so much about knowing so much about the Atonement?” I concluded that my pursuit of knowledge—with knowledge, comprehension, understanding as the goal—was a wasted effort. Far more valuable to me was the experience of pondering the atonement, both while I studied and throughout the day. That immersion in the doctrine kept me closer to the Lord.
Your #1 concern is that you forget things. So do I. But I stopped worrying about that once I decided that gaining intellectual ground on the atonement wasn’t all that important. Now I really enjoy relearning things I forgot.
Comment by BrianJ — September 4, 2008 @ 8:47 pm
BrianJ: Same here. I determined that the mechanics of the act are much less important than its application, and were actively distracting.
I wonder if sometimes we feel that pinning down those metacelestial mechanics will give us some special new insight, though. That certainly might be true, but how could you ever know that you’ve got it exactly right without some trustworthy oracle that would tell you such or a collection of perfectly precise statements to check it against? The first is a prophet’s privilege, and the second is what we’d be trying to establish because it doesn’t exist…
FWIW, thinking about this has given me a new appreciation for the folks who made the creeds. Specifically, the audacity they had to assume they were correct.
Still, discussions on the mechanics of the atonement serve a useful purpose. We’re talking about it. A friend of mine (also an egg-heady math/CS nerd) thinks truth is often given in approximate and apparently contradictory ways for exactly that reason.
Comment by The Right Trousers — September 4, 2008 @ 9:38 pm
Matt,
Very nice. Your #3 reminded me of what I was thinking when I wrote this:
Of course I am thrilled to see your #4 and couldn’t agree with it more. I have struggled with #7 a lot. #5 is a good reason for moderation. Sometimes I am more tempted to moderate the people who destroy the progress of a good discussion than the ones who say outrageous things.
For what it’s worth, I have thoroughly enjoyed many of the discussions we have had here about the atonement and have gotten a lot out of them.
Comment by Jacob J — September 4, 2008 @ 10:18 pm
Jack **S (#1), Hilarious!
Comment by Jacob J — September 4, 2008 @ 10:19 pm
I believe it was Niels Bohr who considered accuracy and clarity to be complementary, which is to say possibly mutually exclusive. At any rate, one wouldn’t expect something the length of a blog post to approach an accurate description of the atonement.
Comment by Peter LLC — September 5, 2008 @ 3:58 am
Matt:
I think what we can and must do is press on with humility and patience. And I think this lack of these characteristics is often what makes discussion less than what it could be.
I also have this sneaky suspicion that at some future point, when we do understand the atonement completely, we may likely give ourselves a forehead slap because it is so simple. I often think we know a little more and are closer in our approximations that we give ourselves credit for.
Comment by Eric Nielson — September 5, 2008 @ 5:43 am
I think the Atonement is best discussed not theoretically or allegorically, but in description by those who are changed through its power. Which is pretty much what we do. I don’t think we have the information to discuss at a granular level the metaphysics: why it is, within the basic stuff that makes up reality, that Christ’s suffering and death opens access to these healing powers that would otherwise be closed to us. But we can know that those healing powers are real, and we describe their action and results, especially that they are the result of faith in Him.
I know that this isn’t so much Thang’s thing - just sayin.
~
Comment by Thomas Parkin — September 5, 2008 @ 10:39 am
Matt, there are perhaps some other reasons that make the atonement difficult to understand.
a) Lack of revealed truth. I’ll analogize with the evolution of physics over the past few hundred years. It started with Newton, and the laws of motion, which did a great job explaining gravity and are still quite useful today. But it failed to explain how planets orbit and how other heavenly bodies worked, which led to the theory of relativity. Physics has continued to evolve from there to quantum mechanics and string theory, all in an effort to find a universal truth about our physical universe. Each theory is an improvement and is more comprehensive than the one preceding it, but the simpler laws still have their use in their own realm.
I see understanding the atonement in much the same way. We only know what we know based on what has been revealed to us. So until we have further light and knowledge on the matter, it is unlikely that we will have any better understanding of the atonement than we have today (not that we can’t each refine our own personal understanding). The explanations in scripture are good enough for our realm and what we need to achieve on earth, but until we have the tools to see beyond our own realm, I don’t see us being able to go beyond our current understanding, as limited as that may be.
b) Cultural bias. I am not aware of anything in our culture that allows us to use a proxy to pay for our debts. Our justice system is based on punishing the criminal for the crime, and our laws of finance require the debtor to pay the debt. Even bankruptcy does not apply “atonement” principles, since the creditor loses capital when a debtor cannot pay a debt. There is no expiation.
As a result, the fact that anything can pay a debt for us seems odd. Perhaps there are other cultures that do, but Western Civilization does not, and that makes the concept difficult to understand.
Comment by Darin W — September 5, 2008 @ 11:06 am
I want to apologize for not being able to repsond yet. Work is extremely busy. (see #8 above). I’ll make time this weekend. Some of you have said some very interesting things.
Comment by Matt W. — September 5, 2008 @ 11:08 am
Most sin takes place between ourselves:
“Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” She said, “No one, sir.” Then Jesus said “Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more.”
There are three distinct steps here: 1) Has no one condemned you? No one, sir. 2) Neither do I. 3) Go and sin no more. So, it appears that 2 & 3 were dependant on the answer to 1.
Jesus also said:
Most sin may simply take place among ourselves. If no one was injured perhaps there was no sin or no debt. So, the sin is not the act itself but rather the damage that was inflected on others.
Atonement amounts to balancing the books between us. We must repent and provide restitution to the extent that we have done all we can do. We must forgive to the extent that we let it go completely. Our hearts must be changed to the extent that we have no more disposition to do evil, but to do good continually.
At this point I visualize the kingdom gates opening and we join others who have gone through the same steps as we enter into a closed society.
Jesus comforts us as we go through this process and rewards us in our next estate.
Comment by Howard — September 5, 2008 @ 11:58 am
Jack S.- amusing.
R. Trousers and Brian J.- Aproximations are good, and not worrying about what I don’t know is fine, but I do want to know, and I want to be better. I think the first step is being aware of what the obstacles to better performance are, and seeing if any of them are helpable. I believe some of them are. (language issues, etc.) Others are not in my control, but being aware of them as issues helps make them less disappointing.
Jacob J.- I remember hat post, and in many ways, that very post was the beginning of sorts for me. Before that, I had dipped my toe, but that really made me realize how much more I was missing. Anyway, I think we have a tendancy to not fully understand what the atonement is and does because we don’t fully understand the problem it is the solution for.
Peter LLC: this is a fine example of how language can be confusing “accuracy and clarity to be complementary, which is to say possibly mutually exclusive”
For my #7- I guess that since the atonement is really, and I have really experienced it in my life, it is more a matter of expressing what I have experienced on a macro level. Maybe I’ll do a post on that soon. That is really the only check I can think of for testing hypothesis, does the hypothesis match my experience? Of course, there are dangers in limiting to ones own experience, as in if I see something and it was a fluke, then I shouldn’t base all my experience on that. I have to be careful…
Eric: I too often think the solution is so simple and just beyond my ability to articulate. But if I can not express the Gospel correctly, am I really correctly experiencing it? It troubles me.
Comment by Matt W. — September 6, 2008 @ 4:21 pm
Thomas: What and in what way does the atonement heal us? I think what sometimes happens when we focus only on those who are changed by it is we lose sight of what it is, then suddenly God is reduced to a vending machine dispensing good when we put in our prayer quarters. (evil analogy, sorry about that). What I mean to say is I don’t want to reduce God to an object.
I do think we need to focus more on our experience, like I said earlier to Jacob. We need to ground our theories in our experience. Of course, this means we need to define what of our experience is or isn’t the atonement.
Comment by Matt W. — September 6, 2008 @ 4:26 pm
I have read accounts of those who experienced the atonement by watching the Savior bleed and suffer in the Garden for them. I believe they know and understand the atonement in ways that words could never express.
Comment by Steve Graham — September 25, 2008 @ 11:30 am
Orson F. Whitney has one such famous account, David B. Haight another.
Comment by Matt W. — September 25, 2008 @ 7:11 pm
Every week I drive up to a station, plunk down an excessive amount of money, and fill my car up with fuel. Why? I’m no mechanic, I don’t understand the chemical properties, or the combustion, or other words. I know the fuel makes the car go, however. When I get really confused about the atonement I think about that and remember that I know something works even though I can’t explain and define each aspect. Still, I ought to know enough to keep the car going, such as the fact that any liquid doesn’t help, I can’t pour water in the tank, for example, so something of a correct understanding is needed. This example is flawed in and of itself, but hey, gas make car go.
And to the fellow who said “Most sin takes place between ourselves” (#12): I would ay I have felt the same thing. When God commands us to forgive all men, whether or not they have petitioned for forgiveness (http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/64/10#10) I start to get the feeling God may be more like that than I have realized before. If he expects us to do so, why wouldn’t he do so? (I guess we could talk about limited knowledge vs. His superior knowledge. But still, it seems we will be the ones exercising the most judgment, and as we mete so shall it be meted.)
Good food for thought, yet again.
Comment by BHodges — October 7, 2008 @ 4:05 pm
BHodges, I have alway sfigured God to be forgiving. When we shrink away, it is because of our guilt within ourselves, rather than his unopen arms, IMO.
Comment by Matt W. — October 7, 2008 @ 4:39 pm
I have always thought of God as forgiving, but in a contradictory way that also thought he has a very heavy hand to punish us with, which can be a frightening thought. I think my views on God’s scariness are changing in fundamental ways.
Comment by BHodges — October 8, 2008 @ 5:34 pm