ed

AT One WATH GOD II Corinthians 5:1l-2i Mareh 14, 1965
Fidty years ago, men of reason, trbebbectwets=are, people who were accustomed to

Cm¢ ¢ rae a wo imly
undergirding their lives with the rational processes of logic, were obsem@eed with one
. 7 , “the
question regarding religion: ("Is it true?") Tae? theory of evolution, accepted by every

respectable scientist, seemed to be incompatable with the creation story in Genesis.

Men of reason Suddenly began to question the historical accuracy of the entire Bible -
and proved to their own satiséaction that mich of what is told about Israel and about

Jesus, simply coumhdn't have happened in the way it is easy ag.| Tos going philosophy was
that if if Isn't true scientifically and histprically, it isn't true in any way.\And_so

That eas in the life of the church is over. \ Thanks to the efforts of Biblical scholars

and theologians the faith was freed from its shaky basis of historical literalism, a basis

that never was very sound in the first place.\Today, the question "Is It true?) is
asked only by the theologically and spiritually naive: but in the place of this question
has come another, even more critical; { trot difference does it make?" )This is the
question that thinking men ask today; and it is a question every man answers by his
membership in or tacit rejection odf the church of Jesus Cyrist.\"What difference does
it really make? Dées it really matter whether or not { am a Christian? Is it relevant?"

In our scripture lesson this morning, taken from Paul's second letter to the church
at Corinth, we read the New Testament answer:( "If any man is in Christ he is a new

crwation . .. that is, God was in CHrist, reconciling the world to himself.) his is the

bed-rock claim of Christianity: the point at which we hear the testimony of history that

it does make a great deal of difference: | that what happened in Palestine between the years
30 and 33 AD is of great significance for every nan.| (For God was jin chrict, reconciling
the world, to himset .*)

This is the basic claim of the church, and the answe r to the question, (What

——- fla, ack Fes Cersd
differenc edoes it make.") Thedlogically, 4 is expressed in the doctrine of the atonement,

a doctrine that is difficult and confusing and there fore frequently either misunderstoodd

or ignored. \ iy purpose in sppakigig about Atonement this morning is not just to enlarge

your theological vocabutary. [Rather it is to demonstrate that when we ask the question,

" What differgnce does it make?", as we all do periodically, we must, sooner or later, compe
o- ¢
to grips with atonement as the church's answer to our questions.

Of-course—tImaxz_ | have another-motivefor_dealing with this—@i¢ficult theologicat
dootrtre) 11 has been my brief experience that much of our religion falls into the category

of meaningless gesture or sentimental tradition, because if deals only with the periphery

of our lives.\ Religion seldom penetrates deep inside, where we form oir view of the world,

where our motives are crystallized, where we put togwther our personality and our way
Ghost ove \. Vs
of doing things. \ But a frank discussion of atonemnt, because of ifs basic claims, thrusts

=*

religion into the hidden sanctuarées of our lives And so you you could say that my
2. ~ ce oad Yu —— \- &*« ¢ bein
sééendery purges is to persugde you to think whtmebely, oe oh. by Lepete t Ly. :
- Art ~ Ovye Wi eal
Atonement means to be aft one with someone or something) Atone is an active verb, and
“5 Sep aot com

it indicates an action that alters a prior condition, ~ put some meat on Webster's bare
il —
bones, then, we must begin by asking{ "what is that prior condition that atonemtn changes,

and of course, what we are talking about is $in.
We believe that man was created to live in harthony with God and with other men.| The

Shorter Chatechism sums if up when it asks: (wnat is the2 cheif end of man?") and answers —

—

(the chief end of man is to glorify God and ka enjoy him rdrever.") Philosophically the

Christian believes that man was created for a purpose, that purpose being to live In

éellowship with the creator and other created beings.

——

Now having said that, we turn right around and affirm the obvious truth that this

es

condition of harmony between God and man, and man and man, simply doen't exist, i n and

I

of itselt.| You don't have to be a Christian to realize that there is something radically
wrong with the human situation; that there is a tragic, grating disharmony about life.

The great xtkze literature of the world bears witness to @ax man's knowledge of this
slit adsaieat ins this theme away from Dante, Goethe, Milton, Shakespeare, and there would be
nothing lett.| Today, there is no markey for the aptintetes author: the men who have caught

up. and expressed the feelingsééof our generation have been the nihilists, those obsessed

—__.

with? the alsurdity of life and man's continuing inhumnaity to man.

Take an overview of the world situation, Can we even begin to think that man is all rt ght
can we see anything but the glaring evidence that humanity is out off from something very
essential -— and that the continued a absence of that something leads only to self destruction.
Purveyors of doom and damnation have always been certain that ineir generation wes the worst

— +
40 4 de Covw~oure d
ever, but | don't mean this at atti mena) , only, ‘the irony of man's brilliance -mesedsed

ho :

ay his inability to learn _how fo live with other men, or with himself.

Too manyg goad people in hisotry have done unequivocaf ly et evil things femmes to

ignore the possibility that there is something wrong with all of us,\ We like to place people

in categories: that is, there are good people and bad people. The story of rhe Nuremburg
Ee hia ar Ae questiaw wes

T
Trials is a graphic illustration of what I nean) How was if possible for seed people,

husbands and fathers, doctors and lawyers, judges and school teachers to accept the

unmistakable evil of Nazism?\1t was poss! ble because the potential for eveil as well as

good resides in every man.\ Iread the Book, Judgement at Huremburg'/ some time ago, and spat

-

a profitable evening last week watching the movie. \ The movie made its point about the

ambiguity of human morality quite eloquently.| But what followed the movie on the late

news was even more eleoquent. | The movie closed the book on all those nice German people

who shut their eyes, or individually committed the atrocities of Hiltlerism: but after

several commercials the book was violently reopened, and the year was 1965 and the place,

It is the same story, good

Selma, Atabane. [B11 1y Wilder couldn't have done it any better.

peole, respectable people, people who love their children and go to church and contribute

to the Boy Scouts and Little League, now taking obvious delight in bashing the heads of
€ > ‘ P 2 4.
their racially infieror nerannar ss Se again the question arises:\"How is it possible?"
P,
How can they do it? /The answer is not that Alabama has a monopoly on evil men, any more

tha& Germany did, \The answer is simply that they are men, the same humanity that occupied

Germany under Hitler, and the same humanity that courses through the being of us all.

[t is an ambiguous humanity, sometimes good, sometimes evil. But alone, by itself, cut off

— creation
from the eternal goodness of Sam and terribly estrabgedX% from other humanity.

Whatever you call it, something is wrong.| sometnigg separates man from God, and man
from man, and that something Christianity calls sin.| lt rears its ugly head in a
fantastic variety of ways, from racial hatred to personal snobbi shness.| But it is there
and it is here, in the pereoanla potentiality of you and me and every person who ever
lived.

The trouble is that we no longer call it sin,{ In the sophisticated 20¢h century

sie
we prefer fo see all our difficulties in terms of simplg moralisms, or psychological

na ad justnent.| Professor Reinhold Niebuhr, in 1959, could speak of the "Comp lacent
conscience of maderm nan" s a common ma lady of the 20th century, and prove that our easy
morality stems from our reiuetence to think about sin.\ In short we have been deceived into

by
thintiing that the worlds ills can be cured wk American money, societies ills by better

schools, and our peronal problems by a few trips to the psychiatrist's couch. Within this
conyext then, there is no hbnest facing the truth xaezkemzhk that there is somethign amiss
about the whole situatoéon.— and therefore no way oui of it no awareness that we are
estranged from the God who created us, ad therefore no possibility of a coming together
again, no possibiltiy of atenemtn.
Now, let's stop agmz for a moment and review the main points.
First: soemthing is wrong.| an is separated from whatever it is that gives meaning
and purpose to his Life.) fan needs oe at one with God, his fellow man, and self.
Second, that which prohibits this "At oneness" is Sin.
Third, somethingg must happen to create the conditions for a return to atone—ness."
Common sense, bolstered by our reluctance to admeit our own helplessness, teéls us
that we ought to be able to create these com ditions ourse|es. | We like fo believe that if
we try hard enought we can cure the ills of the world and our own lives and bring aurselves
back into a right relation with God.| This is the story of man's religions: dances, rituals,

sacrifices, moral laws, all with the express purpose of creating the conditions for

reconciliation: means of bribery, if you will, to persuade God to be at one with man.

Se

unequivocal NO,| The main thought of the Bible is that God takes the xaxzazkha initiative

= —— . ——_

in bringing about a right relationship with wat ot man's efforts, more often than not,
only seifve to deepen the gulf that is already there. | tats is the story of ,srael that

Tom Mikelson is telling so eloquently in the Lenten Lecutenes. | God is the one who elects

—_—

a people; he chooses#, calls, leads, establishes, and when it is time for atenement and
reconciliation - he is the one who again takes the initiegéve.

With this background we can begin to understand the doctrine of atonemament.~ and to

———— - ——— —

see its centrality and crores ws speak of the (Vatonin death of Jesus Chri st) we say

that Christ died to alter the condition that makes atonement impossibi le = "he saves us

from our sins" {ous what we ususal ly mean is that Christ paid the préce for our sins:

we are guilty, we have offended God. \ cod must be avenged, someone has to be punished -

and so Christ was punished for t us and God is satisfied This, of course, simpJy does not

correspond with the Biblical doctrine of God, nor the doctrine of the Trinity.\1t puts

us and Christ on one side, and God and his wrath on the other It is easy to understand: it

has become the source of a flodd of Gospel songs which tell of being saved by the blood of

———_

the lamb: but in this extremely mechanical context if compleltly misses the true meaning
of atonement,
What we really ymean is that Jesus Christ is God's provision: \he is Godis way of setting

the Stage so that atoenemtn becomes a igoearet reg, Thee is nothing mechanical about it?

The death of Jesus Christ is God's way of providing a bridge across the gap that separates

us from him, \I-doeent+-happer-eutometioatttys there is no avenging God or bribing God:

There is simply the fact that in the death of Jesus Christ God has created the condi tions

underw which atonement can occur.

Let's illustrate this with a simble series of events from our common life i fore tha"t

you have done something that has seriously offended your nol ghbor.\ There is gap between you

that you can feel _everythme you see him,|You have been wrong and you know it and your guilt

begins to bother you, \tustering your courage you go to,him and apologize\\ You want to do

smaething to make aménds, so you bring him a gift, a symbolic peace offering.) ut this course

of action, however noble, does not guarantee that forgiveness will take place:

6.

There is no guarnatee that the gap will be closed and you and he will be at one again.

In fact, he may even resent yout trying to buy back his friendship and the siuation may
be worse thanbefore.
But suppose that he, the offended one, takes the native: | supppose he approaches you

first and to demonstrate his desire to be at one with you, he brings you a gift.) Shoukd

—_—— =

this be the case, forgiveness has happened, the gap is immeidaltey cloded and a new relation

Fe

ship is created_because he, not yOu, took the initiative.
cAowemer , expiessed tn « Poss aa ert

This is’a rather poor human analogy. te-etenemeeat.|It is not a paying back for wrong

done, but the initiative of the one who has been wronged setting the stage for your response

and a new relationship. \o¢ course, you can also ignore him, atonement is not automatic,
but it becomes possible when he takes the initiative.

In his book on icarnation and atonement, D.M. pal te jsota:( "Te crucifixion of Jesus
set men thinking more than anyhting else that has even happened in fhe history of the human
race| And the most remarkable fact in the whole history of religious thought is this:
that when the early chirtains looked back and porfered on the dreadful thing that had happene
it made them think of the redeeming love of cod.) pl384

This is the eaozcmeas enormous claim of chrtstieni ty. | Thet Jesus Christ on the Cross,

is God, through his own suffering, taking the initative, crealing the conditions rar a new
Lu Mux weds os Da qua
relationshIp, coming to us and making possible — atonement. we. = Chews > teemes ny.

In our common life we have seen the scars of man's wrangness.| In our peronsal lives

we experinece a sense of estrangement and alienation from se and from each other| The

message of Christianity is that we were created for more than this: _ that there is a

‘ a
possibilty ofxememazzkzazken atonement, at oneness with God and nan:| There is the

posssibiiltiy of becoming a new creation - 4 Because God has acted: he has made it possible.

We have only to accept.