ESR's Stephen W. Angell shares this reflection after attending Indiana and Ohio Valley Yearly Meetings this past summer:
The
most constructive theological move that Quakers could ever make is cheerfully to
agree to disagree on the Atonement. Not on the fact of the atonement
itself. From the seventeenth century
onwards, Quakers have properly held that the influence of Christ Jesus who died
and rose again at Jerusalem 2000 years ago, and the continuing influence of the
Light of Christ Jesus within us, are that in which we place our hopes and in
which we rest in confidence of salvation. No, we need to be able to see reason
in wide-ranging views on how exactly
Christ Jesus accomplishes that atonement on our behalf. The Christian Churches
as a whole have never been able to agree on the latter question, whether at the
seven Ecumenical Councils prior to 787 or at any other time. Why should Quakers
think that we should be able to succeed in prescribing a single view, where
other Christians have failed? The sole result has been endless rounds of
separations, splits, and schisms. If we could agree that varying views of the
atonement are compatible, and be able to embrace many such views and be highly
reluctant to exclude any, we would be far ahead of where we have been for the
past 200 years.
Quakers,
and Christians, are besieged on all sides. Some of the battering that Quakers
in the Midwest have experienced over the past few decades has been social and
economic. Several Friends at the latest sessions of Indiana Yearly Meeting (a
yearly meeting of mostly evangelical Friends), including plenary speaker Ron
Selleck and Van Wert Friends pastor Paul Hamrick, have given persuasive
accounts of the human devastation that has resulted from the closing down of
factories and the waning of family farms. Both Selleck and Hamrick discussed
their ministry to people with addictions and mental illness, exacerbated, one
would think, by the region’s economic decline. What these down-and-out folks
require is a Savior with power, one who is able to take away their sins and to
bear their punishments. On this Savior who atones vicariously (in our place)
for our sins, we can lean completely and with confidence. This is the first
step for these folks – let’s call them new Friends – to begin to turn around
their lives. We need this powerful Savior, this Lord, who demands our
obedience, and who atones for our sins in place of us!
But
that is only one of the challenges that Christians – and Quakers – have faced.
Another is with a highly educated elite on college and university campuses.
These folk have great confidence in the power of reason, and they sometimes are
put off by a religion like Christianity that celebrates the “foolishness of God
[which] is wiser than men.” Friedrich Schleiermacher, an early advocate of
liberal theology over two centuries ago, knew this type of skeptical audience
very well, and addressed his speeches on Christianity to the “cultured
despisers” of religion.
Yet this group also may be attracted by the Good News
of a Christ that is our friend, one who walks and talks with us, and serves as
an example for us. This is the Christ who leads us through our spiritual
journey, our religious experience. This Christ Jesus is a rabbi, a teacher; and
the Light of Christ Jesus that continues within us is our Inward Teacher. At
Ohio Valley Yearly Meeting (a yearly meeting of mostly liberal Friends), which
met the weekend after Indiana Yearly Meeting, this friendly savior Christ was
very highly regarded and spoken of.
The
truth, of course, is that the Christ who speaks to drug addicts and the
mentally ill and the Christ who speaks to educated elites is the same Christ.
The Christ who lived two millennia ago and the Christ who continues to live in
our hearts is big enough to embrace all of these attributes that Christians
have so impressively testified to. Sometimes, however, we want to narrow Christ
down. At both Ohio Valley and Indiana Yearly Meeting, I heard voices of
disapproval toward the view of Christ and Christ’s atonement that was not the
featured one at that yearly meeting’s session. One speaker at Indiana Yearly
Meeting stated that the fact that “Jesus was a good teacher and charismatic
rabbi is important, but not enough.” The only Jesus powerful to save people
deep in sin, such as people suffering from addictions, is a Jesus that has been
crucified and resurrected, who has suffered for our sins in our place, despite
the fact that none of us deserve it. Expressions at Ohio Valley Yearly Meeting
were more fleeting, but at times there was expressed a clear preference for the
model of Jesus as a friend, as the human savior who leads in the paths of the
Quaker testimonies – peace, equality, simplicity, and integrity, and sometimes
it may have been implied that other models of the atonement do not measure up.
This
is, of course, not the first time that Quakers have taken sides on the issue of
the atonement, and the results have sometimes been disastrous. Two centuries
ago, Elias Hicks decried those who believed that Jesus’ blood was saving,
stating that Jesus’ blood was no more instrumental in our salvation than the
blood of a chicken. Orthodox Friends such as Thomas Evans and Joseph John
Gurney responded with numerous assertions that the blood of Jesus was saving to all humanity, together
with many Scripture passages to support their assertions. The result was a
wrenching separation, which affects the Society of Friends adversely to this
day.
Steve Angell is the Professor of Quaker Studies at ESR










