In the third section of Alan Mann\u2019s book, Atonement for a \u2018Sinless\u2019 Society<\/em>, Mann deals with the Passion narrative of the Gospels as a narrative that invites the postmodern self into the text in order to find ontological coherence through Jesus\u2019 own coherence. I think the book deserves reading by pastor groups, seminaries, and advanced college classes. And, of course, I think the emerging movement as a whole ought to spend some time with this book. In the third section of Alan Mann\u2019s book, Atonement for a \u2018Sinless\u2019 Society, Mann deals with the Passion narrative of the Gospels as a narrative that invites the postmodern self into the text in order to find ontological coherence through Jesus\u2019 own coherence. I think the book deserves reading by pastor groups, seminaries, and advanced […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":197,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1744],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1152","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-atonement"],"yoast_head":"\n
\nSome of us will say, \u201cSay what?\u201d I found this section of the book both stimulating and rhetorically heavy. It is loaded with the rhetoric of postmodern self discussions but at the same time a fair and even-handed study of the passion narrative as a text that can lead to conversion. The postmodern sees a Jesus who portrays and goes public with his real self.
\n\u201cThe reader is beckoned into the narrative by the hope that, perhaps, here is the narrative possibility of liberation from his or her own ontological incoherence, here is a counter-story with which to retell his or her own story in a coherent way without the fear of shame that comes through exposure\u201d (113).
\nJudas, whom Mann treats with sensitivity, is an example of narrative incoherence. In other words, the reader is challenged to be like Jesus or like Judas \u2014 to have a real self or a shamed self. \u201cJudas experienced the total and utter collapse of his personal narrative \u2014 psychologically, socially and spiritually\u201d (124).
\nJesus, as the real self, goes to the cross by his own choice. It is his commitment to give his life for others \u2014 and having others is the only way to have the real self.
\n\u201cDescribed briefly, the atonement is an act of love that restores the relationship between humanity and God by removing all boundaries that separate us \u2014 including death. It is the making possible the presence<\/em> of mutual, undistorted, unpolluted relating between the individual and the \u2018Other\u2019, for to be \u2018at-one\u2019 in this way is to be human as God intended\u201d (137).
\nAnd this: \u201cThe cross, however, is not a place of judgement for the inadequacies and insufficiencies of human relating. Indeed, it is a place of acceptance, of embracing the human condition. Atonement is the presence of the \u2018Other\u2019 without condemnation\u201d (139).
\nA final statement: \u201cIn this way Jesus\u2019 story leads the post-industrialized self \u2018exactly to the \u201cplaces\u201d he must occupy with his person: on the one hand, to the place of the person rejected by God and before God; on the other hand, to the place of the child living near with God\u2019, and with his, or her, fellow human beings\u201d (145).
\nThe eucharist is physical participation in this story. Mann recommends permitting the postmodern (unconverted) selves to participate in the eucharist as a form of physical welcome for the postmodern self moves to conversion through group acceptance and participation. It may be that the postmodern self will find the ability to \u201cconfess\u201d this story by participating in a group that confesses this story.
\nI\u2019m interested in Mann\u2019s \u201ctheory\u201d of atonement. This book seems to be a recapitulation theory of atonement. Its hints of Abelard are, as I see it, only hints; it is bigger than example and more that Jesus lived our life for us and we are summoned to be incorporated into his life. It is not quite substitutionary, though it at times comes close. I think the substitutionary theory of the atonement is an adaptation of recapitulation, a radical recapitulation theory.
\nThe structure of the atonement in this book is problem, theory, and resolution: shame and ontological incoherence, life\/Jesus as story, and resolution of shame by seeing Jesus\u2019 life and death and resurrection as the story of the truly ontologically coherent one. The structure is entirely traditional; the contribution is that shame and ontological incoherence get the normal place of \u201csin\u201d (and he sees shame as a form but not identical to sin) and he utilizes \u201cstory\u201d theology in a fairly normal fashion, but his use of Jesus as ontologically coherent is clearly innovative and suggestive.
\nI see a weakness to this book: I wonder if there is concrete evidence, anecdotal to be sure, of those who find this story of the passion to be a way of growing out of shame and into the story of Jesus as their story. This is the one element that I thought Mann needed in order to make his book credible. As it is, it is entirely theoretical: and I like the theory so far as it goes, at least in the main, but I wonder if it \u201cworks.\u201d In other words, do \u201cpractitioners\u201d find this to be atoning for postmoderns?<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"