Atonement...a word...an act...is it possible?

atonement:Amends or reparation made for an injury or wrong; expiation.

Maybe Gandhi knew...

Picture Gandhi near death from starvation when a crazed man, a Hindu, arrives with food that he insists Gandhi must eat. He demands, "Here! Eat! Eat! I'm going to hell - but not with your death on my soul!"

Gandhi replies, "Only God decides who goes to hell."

"I killed a child!" the man confesses. "I smashed his head against a wall!"

Gandhi asks, "Why?"

"Because they killed our son... my boy! The Muslims killed my son!"

Gandhi sees the man's unbearable grief and remorse. He gently tells him, "I know a way out of hell. Find a child, a child whose mother and father have been killed - a little boy - and raise him as your own. Only be sure that he is a Muslim..."

The man's expression changes to one of hope. He suddenly sees a way in can undo what he has done and effect a restitution. He can replace his own son and provide a Muslim orphan with a home and parents. It is a perfect solution.

And then the Mahatma adds, "And you must raise him as a Muslim."

A look of horror and incredulity comes over the man's face. He had not counted on this degree of atonement. He drops to his knees and sobs.

We often are able to express our regret. And yes, we accept penance. If we have stolen money or other goods we know we need to make restitution. But this merely takes the event back to the status quo ante. We give back what we stole or pay for it in cash. We repair what we damage or replace it. We print a retraction or publicly apologize. Or, we balance the destruction of one life by giving life to someone who would surely perish without our help.

But this is not enough. It is as if the act of sinning takes us into negative numbers and restitution simply takes us back to zero on the number line. The slate is clean. It's as if we had never sinned at all. Or so we tell ourselves. In fact, in order for true atonement to occur, we must go into the positive numbers, remake ourselves from the sinner who harmed, who hated, who contemptuously stole, cheated, or destroyed, into a person who benefits, loves, and is honest and generous. In short, we have to transform ourselves from one who harmed an enemy into a caring person who benefits that same enemy. Loving our enemies is the greatest of challenges but one that all religions mandate as the ultimate test of redemption.

Absolving a man of sin and giving him the chore of restitution does not correct the man.

After he writes his check - or has someone else write it for him - he remains the same hateful individual, the same bigot, the same thief or killer. He may even become more hateful towards those he has harmed, more filled with resentment for having been exposed and punished. The lesson he learns is that crime carries a penalty, one that can be embarrassing or inconvenient, or expensive. If he changes at all it is either to be more careful the next time he vents his rage or sins, or else to calculate that the sin isn't worth the trouble.

It is not enough to ask for forgiveness, to say, "I'm so sorry." A sinner has placed himself in his own hell and others cannot pull him out of that hell by their acts of forgiveness. He has to do this for himself. He can compensate the victim or he can be put in jail as punishment for his crime. But until he remakes himself into the kind of person who does not commit such crimes, he cannot restore the necessary balance. In Newtonian terms, "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." It was in that "opposite" reaction that Gandhi saw the man's redemption. The Hindu man who in his hatred had killed an innocent Muslim child must adopt a needy Muslim child and by raising him as his own son, discover the true beauty of Islam. He did not have to forsake his own religion. But he did have to be converted from the false Hinduism of ignorant hatred to the true Hinduism of understanding, love and tolerance.

Christians teach that our sins require atonement. Offenders are obliged to repent, apologize, and give as reparation and penance something of value to God whom they have offended. However, due to the enormity of the sin, which is against the holiness of God, and the poverty of their own good, they lack adequate resources to make proper reparation and penance. However, Christians can appropriate Christ's life and death as a sacrifice, "an offering made available to us men to offer as our reparation and penance.... It is simply a costly penance and reparation sufficient for a merciful God to let men off the rest." God allows the Son to sacrifice himself so that we can apply the merits of his innocent death to atone for our sins. Consequently, the model of atonement on which he settles is that of a sacrifice that makes resources available to needy sinners.

Christ's sacrificial death "has no efficacy until men choose to plead it in atonement for their sins. In so far as Christ the Son is distinct from God the Father, the sacrifice takes place independently of us, but even here we can hardly gain the benefit of forgiveness from it until we associate ourselves with it.... The sinner has to use Christ's death to get forgiveness." But then is this view of atonement available to the religious inclusivist? According to the Christian inclusivist, salvation has both an objective and a subjective dimension. The objective dimension involves Christ's death as atonement for our sins. The subjective dimension includes, among other things, the individual's faith and good acts. While only Christianity makes clear Christ's atoning provision, God can be encountered and his grace manifested in various ways through diverse religions. Salvation is available for everyone, regardless of what religion they practice or whether they have heard about Christ's sacrifice, though it does not follow for the inclusivist that all are saved or that all religions provide equally adequate means to facilitate the discovery of God or spiritual development.

The movie Atonement makes you think...because it examines the the consequences of an act that is wrong...and whose author must suffer...and atone...but how?

The question of atonement is a good one...and I believe Gandhi had it right. I also believe that without true atonement...we cannot transform from what created the transgression to begin with. Sometimes it is merely the chicken or the egg question. Was I wronged because I caused the wrong, and when in my judgement of the wrong, will I find redemption? If you don't find peace...then you cannot find redemption...and forgiveness is therefore not enough...nor is making reparations alone...one must not simply come to a zero sum...the balance sheet must have a positive asset and therefore, we must go beyond what seems easy.

I recommend the movie...but I also recommend the Kite Runner and Gandhi...and think about the message...



Sometimes...we just get it wrong...and then must atone. But how? Now that is the question...isn't it?