Derek Fisher and Atonement Theory: Part Deux

by Ben Howard

Yesterday, I wrote a post about Derek Fisher and substitutionary atonement. To be honest, the real impetus for the post came from the feelings of latent hostility that I hold towards Derek Fisher for his role in the Oklahoma City Thunder's loss the night before. Since I also have latent hostility towards substitutionary atonement (nerd hate!), I thought the two would be a nice pairing.

However, in the comments yesterday my brilliant friend Lane Severson pointed out that while my post had done away with this particular brand of atonement theory, I had left nothing in it's place.

As I pondered the implications of that comment, and tried to articulate my own views on atonement theory (I assume this is what all the cool kids do, right?), a new analogy came to mind with a familiar character at the center.

That's right! It's time for Derek Fisher and Atonement Theory Part 2! When you get the chance to simultaneously discuss a relatively obscure basketball player and nerd out on some theoretical theology, you just can't let that opportunity pass you by.

It seems that replacing substitutionary atonement is almost as difficult as it is to replace Derek Fisher. Come with me as a tell you the story of a magical land called Los Angeles in the mid-2000's.

Derek Fisher was drafted by the Los Angeles Lakers in 1996. Over the next eight years, Fisher would be the starting point guard of a team that would win three NBA championships. Fisher wasn't the best player, in fact he wasn't anywhere close to the best player. He was a role player who did his job adequately and quietly.

In 2004, Fisher became a free agent and Los Angeles decided that they no longer needed Fisher and his adequate, but not outstanding play. He left to go play for another team and the Lakers replaced him with...well, they didn't really replace him at all. Over the next three years, the Lakers started the likes of Chucky Atkins, Sasha Vujacic, Jordan Farmar and Smush Parker as their point guard. It's unlikely you've heard of them, and if you have, I'm so very sorry.

Eventually the Lakers discovered that the best replacement for Derek Fisher was Derek Fisher and they resigned him for the 2007 season. The Lakers won two more titles with Derek Fisher being his adequate self on the court every night. And then the Lakers decided to move on and they replaced him with...Steve Blake and the Artist Formerly Known As Steve Nash. That hasn't gone particularly well either.

My point is that while Fisher wasn't a star, and by many accounts wasn't even that good during much of his time as the Lakers point guard, he was the right player for that role. He filled the role effectively and helped his team to function properly. Each time the Lakers decided to move on they found that Fisher was surprisingly difficult to replace.

In A Community Called Atonement, Scot McKnight points out that all of the different atonement theories are useful when they are placed in the correct context. Like Fisher, atonement theory, whether substitutionary atonement, Christus Victor, or any other, is a role player that helps to make the team better.

Perhaps I was too quick to dismiss substitutionary atonement yesterday because it doesn't fill that role for me or for my community. However, just because it isn't the right role player for my team doesn't mean that it can't play a role on someone else's.

There is no Kobe Bryant of atonement theory. There is no superstar atonement theory which answers every question succinctly and drives the theological thinking of everything surrounding it. Maybe that's where my hostility towards substitutionary atonement really comes from. It's not that the theory isn't useful, it's that it's being asked to do too much.

It would be like asking Derek Fisher to be Kobe Bryant. It's impossible and will ultimately wilt under the pressure of being asked for more than it can give.

I may not have a succinct answer to how God saves us, or what precisely the crucifixion or resurrection mean, because that answer can shift on a daily basis. Today it may mean that Jesus died for my sins, and tomorrow it may mean that he was resurrected for my future. Next week it may mean neither, or maybe it will mean both.

We'll just have to find a theory to fit the role. Like Derek Fisher.

Peace,
Ben

Ben Howard is an accidental iconoclast and generally curious individual living in Nashville, Tennessee. He is also the editor-in-chief of On Pop Theology and an avid fan of waving at strangers for no reason. You can follow him on Twitter @BenHoward87. 

 

You can follow On Pop Theology on Twitter @OnPopTheology or like us on Facebook at www.facebook.com/OnPopTheology.

You might also like:

• Screaming Obscenities: How Derek Fisher is Like Substitutionary Atonement
• Megachurches and Victor the Wrestling Bear: Lessons from the ABA
• Style and Substance: When Church is Like a Dunk Contest

Screaming Obscenities: How Derek Fisher is Like Substitutionary Atonement

by Ben Howard

I spent most of last evening screaming obscenities at a middle-aged man for doing an unimportant thing poorly.

That's a pretty average night for me during the NBA Playoffs.

The middle-aged man in question is Oklahoma City Thunder point guard/old guy Derek Fisher and the unimportant thing he was doing poorly was "play basketball." In my defense, he is paid handsomely to do just that, so we're both kind of in the wrong here.

Let me try and provide a little context. I went to school in Oklahoma and subsequently became a fan of the Oklahoma City Thunder. Currently, the Thunder are playing the Memphis Grizzlies in the second round of the playoffs. The Thunder were one of the best teams all season until one of their best players hurt his knee a few weeks back.

Enter Derek Fisher.

It's important to note that Derek Fisher was not always bad at playing basketball. No, once upon a time he was actually quite good. While he was never a superstar, Fisher was the starting point guard of the Los Angeles Lakers when they won five championships from 2000 to 2010. He was never great, but he was a solid role player and hit the occasional big three pointer. Good things.

Unfortunately, Derek Fisher is now 38 years old. While in the real world this would be considered the cusp of "middle-aged," in basketball terms it's over the hill and then some.

So why, you might ask, is Derek Fisher playing so much if he's no longer good at basketball?

Ah, this is the important question. Derek Fisher is playing because he has experience, he has been tested and he has done good things before. Of course, none of these things mean he will play well now or in the future, but they are comforting traits.

As I sat there last night, dejected, hurling insults at an aging basketball player who had never done me any personal ill, I realized something important. Derek Fisher is like substitutionary atonement.

Now you probably weren't expecting that. You may very well be wondering how an over-the-hill point guard is at all similar to the theology that Jesus had to die in order for our sins to be erased and God's wrath to be satisfied. It's a valid question.

Derek Fisher is like substitutionary atonement because, while he may have served his purpose in another place at another time, he is outdated and incapable of responding to the needs of this time and this place. In fact, Derek Fisher is like a lot of outdated theories and theologies. Derek Fisher is also like creationism, and he's like supersessionism (the belief that the New Covenant replaces and supersedes the Mosaic covenant).

As time passes and society evolves, so must our theology; our interpretation of what is true and how the world works. This is not to say that traditional theologies or views are necessarily "bad" or "useless"; many traditional theologies continue to hold strong, but some, like those mentioned above, have served the purpose of their times and need to be discarded so that God can continue to work and speak in the world today.

This is not a dismissal of these theologies for the good they may have done in the past, just a realization that they are no longer responding to the questions that formed them. Like Derek Fisher, they are hurting and no longer helping.

It's difficult to move away from experience and tradition, especially when the next easy answer is not readily available. It's hard to move on from a known quantity out into the vast unknown, but sometimes it's useful and sometimes it's vitally necessary.

Derek Fisher isn't as bad as he was last night, but he'll never be as consistently good as he once was, and soon that good side will be more memory than reality. Substitutionary atonement, or creationism, or whatever outdated theology comes to mind were probably useful in their times. Some of them may still be useful on occasion today, but they are not consistently useful, they are not consistently good, and soon the good they did will be a memory drowned out by the pain they cause when used improperly.

I know it's a weird analogy, but sometimes we have to let go of tradition and abandon the things that worked in the past in order to truly embrace the best of our future.

Peace,
Ben

Ben Howard is an accidental iconoclast and generally curious individual living in Nashville, Tennessee. He is also the editor-in-chief of On Pop Theology and an avid fan of waving at strangers for no reason. You can follow him on Twitter @BenHoward87. 

 

You can follow On Pop Theology on Twitter @OnPopTheology or like us on Facebook at www.facebook.com/OnPopTheology.

You might also like:

• Megachurches and Victor the Wrestling Bear: Lessons from the ABA
• Style and Substance: When Church is Like a Dunk Contest
• An Ode to Swaggy P (or, Why You Aren't Defined By Weakness)