We Cannot Atone for our Sins

Racism, in the form of slavery and the treatment of Native Americans, is often referred to as America’s Original Sin. There are calls for institutions, governments, whole populations even, to make atonement for the legacy of slavery and colonialism. Within this transatlantic conversation there are calls for reparations, expressed as atonement. This is unfortunate because it misunderstands what atonement is and how it works. It would be better all round if the argument for reparation was made without this theological appendage. 

It’s not surprising that activists reach for Christian language. Current anti-racist theory may come from Western secular academics, but it cannot help but express itself through an experience of slavery and liberation in America, that took place far from the ivory tower, in Bible nourished communities. Both sides in the struggle for civil rights were strong churchgoers, so, inevitably the language of liberation and resistance to it was often Christian. And, having found its vocabulary in America, this particular language of anti-racism has come to the UK, where our discussion also tends towards the biblical and theological. This is understandable, but when it comes to talking about reparations as atonement it is a mistake, because atonement doesn't mean what we might want it to. 

Atonement is understood differently by Jews and Christians, but both versions portray an exchange between two parties that is unlike anything envisaged by those calling for reparations.

The books of Leviticus and Numbers in the Torah, stipulate an annual Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur). On this day no one should work, there should be ‘fire offerings’ and a priest should make various sacrifices, which crucially include a sin offering.  It is a day of national cleansing and has also become a day on which some Jews seek restoration and forgiveness in personal relationships.  

One of the ways in which the New Testament authors interpreted the crucifixion was as a version of this sin offering. That’s why Jews hold an annual Day of Atonement, whereas Christians refer to the death of Jesus as the atonement. In the Jewish context atonement is national, though it has acquired an additional personal dimension; for Christians, Jesus, the Lamb of God, was the sin offering that bought, (or provided) forgiveness for people of all nations who believe in him. It is personal and cosmic in scope, it is the cornerstone of evangelical theology, and foundational for much liberal Christian thought too. 

The word atonement has real weight, which is why it appeals to activists as an appropriate way of expressing the scale of the task before us, but it only has this full measure of gravitas because it describes an interaction between God and humans: in Judaism between God and the nation Israel; in Christianity between God and the world. The restoration of human to human relationships as a response and reflection of this divinely wrought atonement is a secondary context, a shadow, a  consequence of the actual atonement, not the thing itself. 

There are many ways that we could and should respond to colonialism, slavery and their legacy. But it is impossible for us to make actual atonement for them, because that’s not how atonement works.

Anyone calling for the West to ‘make atonement’ should remember that atonement is made through a sin offering, in the form of a lamb or bull, that is symbolic. It doesn’t make actual restoration for the sins of the nation. The cleansing comes from God’s gracious mercy in accepting the offering. 

Some Christians say that because Jesus is the son of God, and for Trinitarians also God incarnate, his sacrifice has such value that it actually does wipe the slate clean. Not all Christians hold to this interpretation, but even when they do, Jesus, as a sin offering, like the lamb before him, was a substitute for us. Neither the animal in the Torah, nor Jesus in the New Testament, is actually guilty of anything. Their suffering is vicarious, meaning that although they are innocent, they suffer on behalf of others. 

So atonement is substitutionary and symbolic. Punishment falls on the innocent and actual restoration is impossible. It only counts as meaningful restoration because a gracious God accepts it as such. Atonement is a process in which the wronged party provides the pardon without adequate compensation. We should all stop and think before applying this model to the legacy of slavery and colonialism. 

The metaphor does not work, and that’s before we add Original Sin to the mix. This Christian doctrine says that all human beings are fallen, meaning we are born into a state of sin from which it is impossible for us to escape, except through the sacrificial death and resurrection of Jesus. If slavery is America’s Original Sin then nothing that America does can ever atone for it, because only divine forgiveness can accomplish this. A sin that is infinite requires a punishment that is eternal, meaning only God himself can provide atonement on our behalf. Biblically speaking, all sin is ultimately against God. Humans can never make amends, they must rely exclusively on the mercy of God. So it doesn’t work to transpose this narrative onto relations between descendants of the colonisers and the colonised, unless we are hoping to resolve this through a purely symbolic gesture that leads to complete forgiveness. And realistically, who would be in a position to declare that sins have been forgiven? 

One reason for using the term Original Sin to talk about racism is because it is something that is passed down through the generations. But if we are going to use the term when talking about historical racism then we will have to make a theological choice between the doctrine of Eastern and Western Christianity. Eastern Orthodoxy teaches that Adam and Eve’s descendants inherit the effect of the Original Sin in the Garden of Eden. Western Christianity, for the most part, maintains the Catholic doctrine that we also inherit their personal guilt. Hence the hymn that goes ‘Died him for me that caused his pain’. Many voices are saying that we should reckon with the effects of past racism that flow down the generations. No one is, I hope, saying that the descendants of colonisers and slave owners are born into a state of actual personal guilt for their ancestor’s sins.

Perhaps the only way in which the language of original sin and atonement is useful to us in considering the legacy of slavery and colonialism, is that it teaches us that we cannot declare ourselves forgiven. We are forgiven only when those who have been wronged say that we are. But those directly responsible for the sin are long dead. We are dealing with legacy issues between descendants. Can the current generation give and receive forgiveness on behalf of those long dead? I’m not saying that nothing can be done. But this thing, atonement, properly understood, is unattainable. 

Atonement is about restoration and mercy between God and humans, and you can only run so far when applying the concept to intra-human relations. Forcing the metaphor into this context produces only a symbolic offering exchanged for complete forgiveness. It misrepresents the demand for reparations. 

There are real, substantive, legacy issues to be addressed but we should be very careful about using words like atonement and Original Sin in this context, because they don’t lead where we imagine they do. 

Seek justice, not atonement. Atonement is not justice, because we cannot atone for our sins, we can only be forgiven.

How Did the Church Get the Cross So Wrong?

Good Friday: A Life Laid Down that Others May Live