Atonement
Following on from thinking about sin, I have just finished reading the book du jour, Alan Mann's Atonement in a Sinless Society. And this is sure to pure more fuel on the conservative evangelical fire.
Mann's basic thesis is that contemporary postmodern, post industrialized society has lost touch with the concept of sin. This has created a major methodological problem - how do we communicate the gospel if our audience do not connect with a message of guilt forgiven? Mann answers this by first diagnosing the postmodern condition as being essentially about shame. Shame over the dissonance between the real and ideal self. This causes 'ontological incoherence'. He then goes onto reconfigure atonement theory in terms of narrative - Jesus, the 'ontologically coherent' one, provides a narrative which reaches deep into the postmodern condition by entering into shame and so 'absorbing relational dysfunction' and providing a counter narrative in which people can reimagine their own stories. Practically this theology is worked out around the eucharist table.
Whilst it is easy to get drawn into Mann's winsome presentation (although i don't need to here the phrases 'storied self', ontologically incoherence for a while), there seem to be some pretty major deficiencies in his arguement. Firstly, having presented the postmodern era, in terms of the collaspe of metanarrative and a pick and mix approach to truth, he then goes onto characterise the postmodern as shamed because of the disjunction between the ideal and real. This to me seems to be incoherent (which for Mann seems to be the cardinal sin). The point is that postmodernity doesn't inculcate an ideal self. Society has become so diverse and fragmented, that one person's shame is another's glory. One group's credo is another's anathema. It seems to me that Mann has hit on a genuine insight undoutedly affecting a growing number of contemporary people, but, as theologians just as much a scientists, are wont to do, has tried to feed five thousand with a few loaves and a few fish.
We must remember that sin is at heart not to be explained in terms of sociology, economics, pyschology - however helpful they may be - but ultimately in terms of a relationship with god. Sin is a theological problem and ultimately is only understood and experienced in relationship to god. This is the where the scandal of sin hits for a conteporary audience which has excluded god to the margins of personal morals or seen him off completely.
So only as we talk about salvation can we talk about sin. We must not feel compelled to preach the gospel of sin before we can get onto the good stuff. No - the gospel illuminates the extent of sin and only in this context makes any sense.
Mann's basic thesis is that contemporary postmodern, post industrialized society has lost touch with the concept of sin. This has created a major methodological problem - how do we communicate the gospel if our audience do not connect with a message of guilt forgiven? Mann answers this by first diagnosing the postmodern condition as being essentially about shame. Shame over the dissonance between the real and ideal self. This causes 'ontological incoherence'. He then goes onto reconfigure atonement theory in terms of narrative - Jesus, the 'ontologically coherent' one, provides a narrative which reaches deep into the postmodern condition by entering into shame and so 'absorbing relational dysfunction' and providing a counter narrative in which people can reimagine their own stories. Practically this theology is worked out around the eucharist table.
Whilst it is easy to get drawn into Mann's winsome presentation (although i don't need to here the phrases 'storied self', ontologically incoherence for a while), there seem to be some pretty major deficiencies in his arguement. Firstly, having presented the postmodern era, in terms of the collaspe of metanarrative and a pick and mix approach to truth, he then goes onto characterise the postmodern as shamed because of the disjunction between the ideal and real. This to me seems to be incoherent (which for Mann seems to be the cardinal sin). The point is that postmodernity doesn't inculcate an ideal self. Society has become so diverse and fragmented, that one person's shame is another's glory. One group's credo is another's anathema. It seems to me that Mann has hit on a genuine insight undoutedly affecting a growing number of contemporary people, but, as theologians just as much a scientists, are wont to do, has tried to feed five thousand with a few loaves and a few fish.
We must remember that sin is at heart not to be explained in terms of sociology, economics, pyschology - however helpful they may be - but ultimately in terms of a relationship with god. Sin is a theological problem and ultimately is only understood and experienced in relationship to god. This is the where the scandal of sin hits for a conteporary audience which has excluded god to the margins of personal morals or seen him off completely.
So only as we talk about salvation can we talk about sin. We must not feel compelled to preach the gospel of sin before we can get onto the good stuff. No - the gospel illuminates the extent of sin and only in this context makes any sense.
posted by chris at 9:37 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home