This reflection expounds on a primary focus within black theology—liberation—and it urges western christians to make an exodus out of their captivity in Paul’s atonement in order to participate in an atonement that flows with milk and honey.
To begin, a primary focus within black theology is liberation.
Liberation by a God,
who reveals solidarity with the oppressed,
in Jesus.
This definition is central to black theology’s understanding of atonement. Now, atonement—put simply—refers to a reconciled state between two parties that were formally alienated. And within christian perspective, atonement is accomplished through the death and resurrection of Jesus.
I realize that this language is heavily theological but please stick with me because it’s really important, especially for western christians held captive by Paul’s primary focus on atonement.
A White Gospel, Suspicious of Liberation
I attended a conservative, primarily white, evangelical seminary in the late 90s and early 2000s. While at seminary, I was repeatedly warned about the grave danger of black theology. To be clear, nobody said, “Be warned about black theology.” It was much more subtle than that. Instead, I was exhorted, “Be very cautious about ‘liberation theology.’” The reasoning was, “biblical.”
The expanded version went something like this: Be very cautious about liberation theology because its focus on liberation and hope in the midst of suffering—although important and necessary—aren’t central to the gospel.
According to my seminary training and white, conservative theology, “Central to the gospel” is the shedding of Jesus’ blood on a cross, which is necessary for God to forgive humans of their sins.
Believe this gospel and go to heaven.
Fail to believe this gospel and go to hell.
Now, I’m going to split a theological hair here and you may want to roll your eyes at its seeming meaninglessness. But if you stick with me, I believe this will begin to make important sense and have deep relevance for life, today.
Believing in the the shedding of Jesus’ blood on a cross as necessary for God’s forgiveness can be gospel. But technically speaking, this is a theological statement about atonement.
A Brief Explanation on Gospel as Good News
Gospel, put simply, is the declaration of good news. That’s why Jesus walks into the synagogue in Luke chapter 4 and reads, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news”—from the Greek, euagellion, literally, gospel.
And what is the good news; what is the gospel, according to Jesus? Well, Jesus is very clear. It’s:
Freedom from bondage,
healing for the sick,
release for the oppressed,
and the proclamation of God’s favor on everyone.
According to Jesus, that’s gospel. It’s gospel, you see, because it’s truly good news. Think about it. If you’re in bondage and suddenly freed. Or if you’re sick and suddenly healed. Or if you’re oppressed and suddenly released. Or if you’re unfavored and suddenly favored. That is always—in every circumstance and generation—good news.
Over the years I’ve come to find this to be a very helpful way to think about the gospel of Jesus: The gospel of Jesus is actually, honestly, reasonably, and truly, good news.
A Brief Explanation on Atonement
“Well that sounds real nice Mike, but what about Jesus, the cross, and the shedding of blood?” Excellent question. When we ask that question, we’re deep in the theological world of atonement. As previously mentioned, christian atonement is the meaning-making of Jesus’ death and resurrection in order to reconcile estranged parties.
A Brief Explanation on Paul’s Atonement as Good News
Now, here’s where things begin to get real interesting. Which New Testament author wrote the most about the meaning of Jesus’ shed blood on the cross, which brings about the forgiveness for sins? Answer: Paul.
Paul’s primary understanding of atonement is that Jesus’ shed blood and death on the cross fulfilled the requirements of Israel’s sacrificial system, thereby pleasing God. And ultimately—according to Paul—those who believe in Jesus’ shed blood on the cross receive forgiveness, thereby entering into relationship with God. For Paul, this particular aspect of atonement is good news—that is to say, gospel.
Accommodating for Paul’s Atonement
About this, I’d like us to consider the question, “Why?” Why is an atonement in which those who believe in Jesus’ shed blood on the cross to receive forgiveness, thereby entering into relationship with God, good news for Paul?
Now, depending on your background, you may answer, “Because that’s what God told Paul to write.” Or, you may answer, “Because that’s what the Bible says.” But to be clear, those answers rise from a framework in which the Bible is infallible and inerrent, which is a modern construct for the Bible that is unreasonable and creates a whole bunch of difficulties for christianity today.
To learn more about the problems of infallibility and inerrancy, and to learn more about a wonderfully ancient and historical way of thinking about the Bible, pause from reading this reflection, read a reflection that I wrote titled, Harmonization and Accommodation, and then come back.
Prior to the enlightenment and later generations, words like “infallible” and “inerrent” weren’t really used to describe the Bible. It’s important to remember that the Bible was written by humans who were inspired, but even inspiration could not overcome the biblical author’s own cultures and contexts. For example, the biblical authors could not conceive of a world in which slavery didn’t exist. Therefore, even though the abolition of slavery is good, just, and accords with the heart of God in whom we all move, breathe, and have our being, the biblical authors never appeal for emancipation. Similarly, the biblical authors could not conceive of a world in which women were equal with men. Therefore, even though gender equality is good, just, and accords with the heart of God in whom we all move, breathe, and have our being, the biblical authors never advocate for it. The list of examples that demonstrate the biblical authors’ cultural and societal limitations goes on and on.
With this in mind, I’d like to ask the same question, again: Why is an atonement in which those who believe in Jesus’ shed blood on the cross to receive forgiveness, thereby entering into relationship with God, good news for Paul?
Answer: Because, before encountering Jesus, Paul was a Pharisee. That is to say, before encountering Jesus, Paul was an expert in the Law. Paul was an expert in the law, with all of its regulations and sacrifices. And so, think with me here. Paul has his vision in which Jesus asks him, “Why are you persecuting me?” Paul then decides to follow after Jesus. But as a good Pharisee—in order to follow after Jesus—Paul has to do some work. Paul has to figure out how Jesus fulfills the regulations and sacrifices that gave shape to how Paul understood the world as a Pharisee. And the end result is Paul’s primary perspective on atonement, which is: Jesus’ shed blood on a cross fulfills the Law; Jesus’ shed blood on a cross is the perfect sacrifice. And this is—for Paul—deeply and pervasively, good news. That is to say, it’s gospel, because it sets Paul free.
Who is Paul’s Focus on Atonement Good for, Today?
With this context in mind there are two types of people today, for whom Paul’s primary expression of atonement is good-news-gospel.
First, Paul’s primary expression of atonement is good-news-gospel for people today who read the Bible and say, “God said it, I believe it.” Even if it means that they have to believe in a God who requires blood—the blood of his own son, in particular—to forgive sins.
These people—because of their post-enlightenment perspective and evangelical view on the Bible—must respond to Paul’s atonement with something like, “I don’t care, sure, maybe it’s weird or seemingly unnecessary or even violent, but God said it and so I believe it.”
A second type of person for whom Paul’s primary expression of atonement is good-news-gospel today is for people who do not need physical freedom, physical healing, physical release, or the experience of societal favor—the gospel according to Jesus in Luke 4.
Thinking in terms of who that person is today, in the United States? It is middle-upper class, straight, white citizens. This is a salient critique by black theology. You see, a theology that’s articulated by people of privilege tends to turn core biblical stories—stories about freedom from bondage, healing the sick, releasing the oppressed, and challenging violent systems of power—into metaphor.
Now, having shifted the focus from liberation here and now to forgiveness and eternal life, privileged theology is able to use biblical language about liberation without lifting a finger to liberate. And of course liberation from oppression is good—but because it’s not central to a privileged gospel, it isn’t central to christian life.
Are you beginning to see some of the connections? Baked into a privileged people reading Paul’s atonement in which belief in Jesus’ shed blood saves sinners:
People of privilege—middle-upper class, straight, white citizens of the United States—only need a spiritual salvation because their lives are already good.
Baked into a privileged people reading Paul’s atonement in which belief in Jesus’ shed blood saves sinners:
People of privilege—middle-upper class, straight, white citizens of the United States—don’t have to help liberate those who are oppressed, because—as they see it—that’s not truly gospel.
And baked into a privileged people reading Paul’s atonement in which belief in Jesus’ shed blood saves sinners:
People of privilege—middle-upper class, straight, white citizens of the United States—are able to maintain center stage, telling everyone around them what they must think and do in order to belong to be saved.
A Privileged Gospel is a Racist Gospel
And this? Well this—among other things—foments a racist gospel.
Remember, “gospel” literally means “good news.” And this particular news that we’ve been discussing is only good for those who see the Bible a certain way or for those who have no physical need for help or liberation. And so, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. wrote in his Letter from Birmingham Jail:
I have heard many ministers say: "Those are social issues, with which the gospel has no real concern." And I have watched many churches commit themselves to a completely other worldly religion which makes a strange, un-Biblical distinction between body and soul, between the sacred and the secular.”
In response to black suffering, white theology has offered forgiveness from sins and relief in heaven; in response to calls for black equality, white church structures have offered integration: you can come where we are, so long as it does not change who we are and how we do things, so long as our values, our language, our culture, our voices are still in control.
And speaking directly to white American theology on atonement and—interestingly enough—to Black churches caught up in white theology, the great black theologian James Cone wrote in his book, The Cross and the Lynching Tree:
I accept Delores William’s rejection of theories of atonement as found in the Western theological tradition and in the uncritical proclamation of the cross in many black churches.
I find nothing redemptive about suffering in itself. The gospel of Jesus is not a rational concept to be explained in a theory of salvation, but a story of God’s presence in Jesus’ solidarity with the oppressed, which led to his death on the cross.
What is redemptive is the faith that God snatches victory out of defeat, life out of death, and hope out of despair, as revealed in the biblical and black proclamation of Jesus’ resurrection.
Perhaps this is a helpful way to think about it. If you were a black child, woman, or man in 19th century United States and you witnessed the lynchings of family or friends or neighbors by white christians who lynched in the name of God and justice, is an atonement explaining that God killed Jesus on a tree in order to forgive sins, good news? Is that a good gospel?
No. It is in fact, horrifying news.
“But Mike, it’s in the Bible!” Yes, and fortunately for we white people it’s good news because our privilege only requires a spiritual salvation. It’s good news for we white people because we don’t live in a country in which our forbearers were captured, chained, shipped, raped, enslaved, and hung on trees.
Not only is it unequivocally violent to demand that a person believe in the goodness of a Divine death penalty in order to be saved, but in light of black lives crying out for the good news of liberation, it is wrong—horrifically wrong—for white people to demand that any marginalized person believe in a gospel that isn’t truly good for their lives or situations.
What about Forgiveness?
To be clear, I’m not intending to say that forgiveness isn’t important. Every person feels bad about their mistakes and sins. Every person holds the weight of burden and regret. And stories and tables that praise, sing, and evoke the reality of Divine forgiveness are deeply necessary and christian. But again, to continue trying to be clear, God was in the business of forgiveness long before Jesus died on a cross. Throughout the Hebrew Scriptures God was forgiving sins. And moving into the New Testament, Jesus himself was forgiving sins long before he was hung on a tree.
And so, here’s the thing: If Paul’s primary aspect on atonement helps you to know and to receive forgiveness and to belong in God, wonderful. That’s good-news-gospel for your life and situation. But there must be more, ever-more good news. Put frankly, good-news-gospel must be freed to be truly good for everyone—especially the other—in every generation.
A Brief Historical and Biblical Overview on the Evolution of Atonement
“Ahh, but Mike, isn’t this relativism?” I don’t think so. I think a better word may be rele-vant. For this is the only way to ensure that good-news-gospel doesn’t get hijacked by those who hold all the power.
More so, to engage in the ongoing work of making relevant meaning of Jesus’ death on a tree—the work of atonement—is a work that’s supported both historically and biblically. I’ll briefly explain.
To learn more about the essence and evolution of atonement, pause from reading this reflection, read a reflection titled, Good News, The Essence of Atonement, and then come back.
Historically speaking—over the centuries—different social mores and societies have emphasized different aspects of christian atonement based on its relevance. For example, in the earliest years the majority of christians thought that atonement was primarily for the devil. In later years the majority of christians thought that atonement was primarily for God. And in still later years christians began to think that atonement was primarily for humans. Here’s what I mean…
A Brief Historical Overview: A Satan-Ward Atonement
To the surprise of many, the earliest understanding of atonement in church history is that Jesus’ death was for the devil. This perspective is called “Christus Victor.” According to this theory, atonement dealt with a Divine conflict and victory during which Christ—Christus Victor—fought against and triumphed over evil because Jesus used his own body as bait to catch Satan who controlled the world.
A Brief Historical Overview: A God-Ward Atonement
Now, if you think that way of understanding atonement is a bit absurd, you’re not alone. By the eleventh century came the demise of Christus Victor’s satan-ward focus on atonement. Put frankly, Anselm of Canterbury wrote, “Supposing that the devil, or man, were his own master, or belonged to someone other than God, or was permanently in the power of someone other than God, then perhaps one could justly speak in those terms.” In other words, the world isn’t held by a devil because we are all held in and by God.
You see, Anselm and many of his contemporaries couldn’t conceive of a world somehow held in bondage by a devil. And so, believing that God alone is in power, not satan—satisfaction theory rose into prominence. According to satisfaction theory—which very much aligns with Paul’s primary focus on Jesus’ death and the social mores of feudalism— God needed Jesus’ blood as payment in order to be satisfied.
A Brief Historical Overview: A Human-Ward Atonement
But then came along Peter Abelard who—like Anselm of Canterbury—could not logically conceive of a world held in bondage by a devil. However, he also could not conceive of a God-ward atonement. Abelard struggled to imagine the goodness of a blood thirsty God saving humans by killing Jesus. And so, Abelard explained what’s been called “Humanistic Theory,” in which Jesus’ death wasn’t for satan or for God, but for humans who need to know the amazing depth of God’s love for humanity, which is demonstrated by Jesus’ self-giving on the cross.
It’s out of this perspective that Cone explains the atonement as “Divine Solidarity” in which God—in Jesus—suffers with all who suffer. Furthermore—according to Cone—in Jesus’ resurrection those who unjustly suffer and die have the hope of rising like Christ, into new life.
And so you see, church history reveals an evolution in the meaning of Jesus’ atonement based on the needs and perspectives of the times.
A Brief Biblical Overview: Satan-Ward, God-Ward, and Human-Ward Atonement
Surprisingly, the Bible actually affirms these various directions of atonement. In Revelation 12 we read that Jesus’ blood frees humans from the devil’s accusations—Satan-ward atonement. In Romans 3 we read that Jesus’ blood appeases the Divine who forgives sins—God-ward atonement. And in Romans 5 we read that Jesus’ death proves God’s love—human-ward atonement.
Surpassing all of these biblical perspectives is a transcendent view on atonement found in Colossians 1. It reads, “For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven.” Isn’t that beautiful?
According to Colossians:
Anything and everything,
On earth or in heaven,
Is reconciled to God, through Jesus.
That’s how big and buoyant and relevant Jesus’ death on the cross can be, if we only allow it.
Concluding Thoughts
As I understand it, church history and the Bible invite us into the ongoing meaning-making of atonement as good news for today, with a few constraints that I’ll state as questions:
Is this way of understanding Jesus’ death on the cross truly good news?
Does this way of understanding Jesus’ death on the cross rouse more and more freedom?
Does this way of understanding Jesus’ death on the cross rouse more and more healing for the sick?
Does this way of understanding Jesus’ death on the cross rouse more and more release for the oppressed?
Does this way of understanding Jesus’ death on the cross rouse more and more proclamation of God’s favor on everyone? Yes, sure, spiritually but more importantly, literally?
If the answer to these questions is a hearty “yes” then we are on the path to the good-news-gospel that the Divine is working here, now, today.
Finally, church history and the Bible insist that whoever has been set free, healed, and included in the beloved community of God, must keep asking—again and again—“Whose next?” And whoever is next must have a voice in the meaning-making of atonement so that it’s truly good for their lives and situations, today. This you see is a dynamic, always-evolving atonement that continues the work of God in Jesus. This is the way in which atonement frees us from a static cross, a violent cross, and a perpetually racist cross in which the privileged hold the keys to an impotent salvation that means very little to those who truly suffer.
And so, black theology shines Divine light on the meaning of Jesus’ death, which is liberation found through God’s solidarity with all who suffer. And this prescient understanding urges white, straight, privileged western christians to make an exodus out of their captivity in Paul’s atonement in order to participate in an atonement that flows with milk and honey, here and now.