Christus Victor: Atonement for the Postmodern World?
12 Jun 2007
Our beliefs about our faith always arise in a cultural context and engagement with that context. It’s something I taught at LST last week in a class on Emerging Culture and Church. It got me thinking some more about current exampled. I know it’s an old example in terms of news, but Steve Chalke & Alan Mann’s book ‘Lost message of Jesus’ , and the reaction (Christians who hadn’t even read the book have taken into permanent folklore, the mistaken belief that this book rejects penal substitution, which it does not.
You can read some of the heat here) from the Christian world revealed one of the largest cultural context and belief issues we face today as Christians in the emerging culture, that of Penal Substitution.
Penal substitution, which really emerged with Anselm in the 11th century, and found its zenith in the modern church, was not the preferred understanding of atonement by the early church and church fathers. In a modern world that saw truth through rational and empirical eyes, the forensic and legal metaphor of penal substitution was powerful and connecting.
The postmodern world that has had epistemological crises, about knowing. At it’s best there is a rediscovering that truth is also relational, intuitive, and not always objective. At it’s worst the rejection of objective truth, overlays the metaphor of penal substitution and sees an angry God, who kills his son, an image of cosmic child abuse.
Now we can resist that view, demanding people understand atonement that way, or forever live in error, or we can be sympathetic to the cultural context that causes it, and explore how else atonement might be explored, so that people might be able to appreciate penal substitution, and come to that any notion of atonement in any form (if you believe the Gospel is completely summed up in penal substitution turn away now).
Christus Victor, as coined by Gustav Aulen in the 1930’s (as he described, was the dominant view of the atonement, until the 11th century, and Anselm’s penal substitution, and Peter Abelard’s Moral Influence theory developments. It all gets even more complicated, as Aulen argues that later in history people mistook the early church fathers as having a view of atonement as ‘ransom theory’. In essence Christus Victor is the explanation that atonement is about the incarnation of Jesus into this world, and of participation and sharing in the suffering of humanity, taking them to the cross, so that God triumphs over evil and all of creation is restored and recreated.
Anyhow if you follow the links and dig deeper, what I want to explore is how Christus Victor might resonate more with our current culture, and is biblical and theological, and helpful as we seek to explain the Gospel today.
Helpful – How?
1. Cosmic Story & Epistemic Humility: There is a deep suspicion in the postmodern world of metanarratives, of stories that encapsulate the truth in particular ones that have human beings at the centre! Christus Victor offers a cosmic account, and with humans decentred and located in the context of the whole of creation. Also whilst people are suspicious of narratives that explain life, they search for them constantly, in movies, and other narratives of consumer life. Christus Victor offers a cosmic story of good an evil, creation and environment, suffering and hope, that resonates with our culture, maybe.
2. Suffering and Healing: Despite being protected from suffering in the western world we are more sensitive to it than ever, the pain of divorce, suicide, abuse, depression, AIDS etc. The idea of someone suffering to resolve my suffering can seem abusive, and the image of a legal wrangle to resolve our pain as absurd. Also we more than any time in history have images of suffering pumped into our homes, at overwhelming rates. The notion of Jesus identifying with us entering into our suffering, and that of the rest of the world, to bring healing, justice and victory might be more compelling.
3. Cosmic and Virtual Reality:In the west where we once made models to explain reality, and things have collapsed so that our models and simulations become reality (we send hate mail to TV stars, and believe reality TV has any semblance of reality with real people), the desire to find what is real is maybe stronger than ever. It’s the desire we see in the Matrix, to explore and find the adventure of what is really real beyond the simulations. Christus Victor offers that unmasking, with the Lord of the Cosmos, entering into space and time, to show us what is real and authentic.
4. Holistic:Whereas penal substitution focuses on the death of Jesus, Christus Victor, incorporates the incarnation, life, death and strong emphasis on resurrection. It seems far more holistic and life affirming, in a world obsessed with the holistic.
5. Involvement/Participation Community:Christus Victor is about participation, of God in our world, us with him, to restore and transform and heal creation, instead of the escape of the individual into heaven of penal substitution. There implicit and explicit community from participation in the mission of Christus Victor. It also avoids the escape from the world of ‘left behind’ spirituality.
Drawbacks – Problems
1. Purpose of the Cross:What is the purpose of the cross in Christus Victor. Was it just one of many ways Jesus could have died, including old age. Where and what is the cross for is problematic.
2. Wrath/Judgement/Judgment/Sacrifice: All elements of the bible still need exploring, and can be overlooked in Christus Victor. Postmodern sensibilities want to bypass these notions.
3. Therapy: In a therapetuical culture, the cosmic Christ becomes a therapeutic tool, and consumer talisman to rescue me from my existential suffering. The Jesus of the cross, of dying to self, can be all to absent.
3. Deification of Creation: Humanity can too easily become lost in the ecological project of restoring creation. The Gospel is no just about us as humans, but it is about God and his reaching out to humanity, at the centre of its story.
4. Simulation: In a world desperate for community and authenticity, consumerism can hold us captive, and Christus Victor can support a virtual spirituality, with and other worldly ontology.
So perhaps Christus Victor is a place to start with our culture, and then Penal Substitution can then be explored, along with Moral Influence and other ideas. We need all those aspects, whilst recognising which are liable to be misused by our current culture, whilst understanding which ones rely to heavily on previous cultures.
(For an academic and much better piece on this see: Brad Harper, ‘Christus Victor: Postmodernism, and the Shaping of Atonement Theory’, Cultural encounters : a journal for the theology of culture, 2 (2005), 37-52.)
If you want to explore these topics more see:
Recovering the Scandal of the Cross, Joel Green (Editor).
Atonement for a sinless society, Alan Mann.
The Glory of the Atonement, Charles E. Hill (Editor), Frank A., III James (Editor).
Consuming Passion: Why the killing of Jesus really matters, by Simon Barrow (Editor), Jonathan Bartley (Editor)
Tagged: Atonement, Christus-Victor, Penal-Substitution, Theology
45 comments
Trackback
Comment by edward pillar
5.25 pm on 12 Jun 2007
well done Jason – an excellent set of questions…
There are lots of stimulating things here…
I am fascinated by people’s desire/need for atonement. Is it possible to draw people to a very real relationship with Jesus and a following after jesus without labeling them and their deeds as sinful and thereby in need of atonement? I also think that rather than trying to reconfigure the cross with another atonement theory, a softer view etc, perhaps we should acknowledge that atonement is not the Gospel of the New Testament Church and move onto think about what their Gospel really was…
Does God require atonement in order to forgive us? I think not. I think that God – generous and kind did not demand atonement, but is quite able to forgive from his compassionate will.
In terms of Christus Victor: what does it mean that jesus is the victor? Surely the cross is failure – jesus died! the Apostle Paul seems to be explicit about this in 1 Corinthians 15. ‘If jesus has not been raised then you are still in your sin…and your faith is futile.’ It is the resurrection that gives a victorious edge to the life and death of Jesus – as you suggest in point 4.
Resurrection is about life, a new beginning, a new creation, freshness, joy, hope, justice, etc etc.
there’s probably enough there to get me burned at the stake…
many blessings
edward
Comment by Jason
6.14 pm on 12 Jun 2007
Thanks Edward. The centrality of the cross, and Christ having to die, seems to be central to the NT gospel message. Am I misreading you Edward, what about all the passages about the need for and place of Christ’s death necessary for salvation?
I’m also nervous of universalism, and like Christus Victor as it does not lead into exclusisim, or universalism. I play my inclusivist hand here :-)
I’ll get some matches ready ;-)
Comment by steven hamilton
5.30 pm on 12 Jun 2007
i just finished reading Recovering the Scandal of the Cross by Joel Green and Mark Baker, and i think they do a geat job of surveying the cross, atonement and contextualization…they are right in line with what you are saying here jason! rock on…all meaning is context dependent…
http://www.amazon.com/Recovering-Scandal-Cross-Atonement-Contemporary/dp/0830815716
and some wordcraft for christus victor
A Warrior dressed for battle, yet
Marked by Power unseen
Our hopes and dreams to rattle, still
Rescuing the wretched unclean
Victory, declares Your blazing eyes
In powerful Glory You strike
No more the enemy to arise
Calling us to become Christlike
In a discarded life of unknowing cries
Turnabout is fairplay
O how You save us and
My eyes You dry as we chase after Your loving Way
Now enfold us in Your Arms of Love
In Conquering Hands take Your Bride
All the while we wrestle and in the throes of grace abide
Comment by Jason
6.15 pm on 12 Jun 2007
Thanks for the link Steven, you made me realise I had left out some links to books, and I have added those to the main post.
Cheers, Jason
Pingback by Revolution | Church Undressed
11.00 pm on 12 Jun 2007
[...] would have it, Jason Clark (one of my fav. bloggers and a pastor in England) just posted a fab. conversation about Christus Victor (which is essentially what we’ve been talking about the past 2 [...]
Comment by fernando
3.46 am on 13 Jun 2007
Great post – for a long time now I’ve been all for recovering more historical understandings of atonement, beyond just penal substitution. It’s not just a modern/postmodern thing, but a realisation that our evangelical theories of atonement have not moved in step with the evolution of our views on crime and punishment – something that I was alerted to reading Timothy Gorringe’s “God’s Just Vengence.” It’s not just about our theology of atonement, it’s also about our theology of Justice.
But you have raised a further really helpful question – the relation between atonement and truth (or truth-making). Truth is perhaps the biggest weakness in modern theology and it’s not just an epistemic problem – its also and ethical and ontological dilemma as well. Claiming “it is true because it is true” as so many theologians have done has birthed us a massive and choking set of ecclessiological problems.
As for Christus Victor – I’ve always found it to be a helpful corrective, but insufficient by itself.
Comment by Jason
7.12 am on 13 Jun 2007
Thanks Fernando. I’m also very intersted in the ontological implications and ways of living that arise in the west from our understanding of atonement.
Penal substitution was incarnated to an industrial mechanised world, where humans were in slavery to the alienation of a mechanistic life with nothing here, and everything in the after life. Now atonement needs to be rearticulated for the slavery of consumer construction of self, where the eternal has collapsed into the present.
Comment by Paul
11.17 am on 13 Jun 2007
Hi Jase, I think this is a very helpful and constructive post, so thank you for writing it!
It is also timely given the context we are in, in a consumeristic age a God who pays the price for us becomes just another transaction – this one with no cost to ourselves and therefore with little impact/effect. If God wants to pay for us on his divine credit card then so be it – a christus victor understanding helps move it beyond just another transaction…
Comment by dan brown
4.33 pm on 13 Jun 2007
Thanks for all the great thought starters. The Doctrine of Attonement is really about what Jesus did and what is healed by that act. It has come about very slowly for me but the forensic and legal language of attonement has always given me hesitations about sharing the Gospel with others. Barth, Torrance, Rahner, and many of the other great 20th century Trinitarian Theologians have helped me see that God in Jesus Christ is really for us, in us, among us and with us. I read a book a couple of years ago by C. Norman Kraus, “Jesus Christ Our Lord, Christology from a Disciple’s Perspective” it is clearly written and gives a introduction to possible reintrepretation of the Messianic mission and looks at the historical developments of the Doctrine of Attonement. One of the parts that has had a very profound effect on my life is Kraus’s experience as a missionary in Japan. The Warrior-Martyr Model was not resonating with the people in Japan as a result of their understanding of guilt and shame. As a result Kraus had to re-think what it means to fail in attaining the ideal, the concept of isolating anxiety and how that is not eased by punishment. He purposes a new use of metaphor to reshape the language of vicarious sacrafice. This leads to unveiling false shame and abolishing dogmas. He also expands on the ideas of restoration of God’s image, renewal as completion of God’s Mission and Apolcalyptic restoration. An area of interest for me is the differentiating of guilt and shame and how healing by Jesus is accomplished by understanding these differences. Jesus heals in different ways because there are different cures for different problems. It is a great read and one that will help to view this problem in new light. In the end, I once heard a story; In the country away from the city there are still dirt roads. Some of the roads have two deep tracks that go off toward the horizon. When a vehicle continues to go down this type of road the differential and bottom of the engine start scrapping on the center meridan. The vehicle needs to move to the left or right of the two tracks and that keeps the vehicle moving in the right direction. That is what the Doctrine of Attonement needs at this time in history… may God lead some of us to define in ways that resonate with our brothers and sisters a new road that clearly demonostrates what Jesus Christ has done in Creation that is our justification, what he is doing now in history through reconciliation and what that heals in the world today that leads to our true salvation and redemption by Jesus Christ in the future.
Comment by Laraine
9.38 am on 16 Jun 2007
Thanks for this really helpful post (and subsequent comments). It brings back the good old days of Graham McFarlane at LST! It is quite timely as I may be doing a talk this summer on atonement. I really struggle with Penal Substitution and the focus it creates on God’s wrath… I also find it frustrating that people who I interact with (not at VCS) appear to think it is the one and only way of explaining the reason Jesus had to die.
Any ideas on how I interact and talk to people about this?
Comment by Jason
2.28 pm on 16 Jun 2007
Hi Laraine, thanks for the feedback. Have you read M Volf, Exclusion and Embrace, it has the best understanding of penal substitution that I have come across. So often penal sub is about jesus doing something remotely from me as deal with an angry god, whereas it is about enabling us to go to the cross with jesus, to take our lives, into the cross and resurrection.
We need penal substitution, or at least a non forensic version.
Comment by Laraine
1.40 pm on 18 Jun 2007
I have dipped in and out during my time at LST, I would like to read it again – do you have a copy?
Thanks Jase
Comment by Stanley
2.08 pm on 16 Jun 2007
Thanks Jason
Jesus gives us a bible lesson in Luke and said that his death was to fulfill that which was written about him. In the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke there are only 2 verses that Jesus speaks of his death in terms of salvation. In the first his death is related to his world view. The other his death is related to the new covenant.
In Mat 20:28, Jesus speaks of his death being a ransom but this is directly connected to his world view. The foundation or world view of Rome was that of debt and obligation. Those lower in society being indebted to the higher who were their patrons. Caesar was indebted to the gods and Caesar assumed the position of Patron to all of Rome. Thus all of Rome was indebted to Caesar. Jesus deconstructed this world view and was in direct opposition to it and his death ransomed us from this world view. I believe ransom here meant to be emancipated or set free. Thus in this limited sense his death was not an atonement. Jesus’ world view or the Kingdom of God was modeled by him by word and deed. Not to be served but to serve. Love enemies, do well, lend and expect nothing in return, be merciful as our Father in heaven is merciful. His response to the power grumblings of the disciples was to subject oneself to be a slave and that Gods Dominion would be given to little children.
Those of us from the evangelical tradition focus on individual salvation and individual forgiveness of sins and thus focus on individual redemption or restoration. In Mat 26:28 Jesus speaks of his death as the new covenant and the forgiveness of sins for many. The covenant implies group redemption and restoration. In the old covenant, many different types of offerings or sacrifices were prescribed. Most of them were not sin offerings. The focus of the sacrifices for sin offerings themselves was not on the forgiveness of sin but their focus was restoration of the community of Israel as a whole. Individual sin affected the whole community and the Day of Atonement was for the whole community of Israel. Thus the atonement was not to save individuals from hell or to save individuals from Gods wrath but to restore the whole community. We have many examples of salvation being extended to families and the day of Pentecost the Holy Spirit was given to them and their children. The often quoted verse that LORD God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in loving kindness and truth; who keeps loving kindness for thousands of generation, who forgives iniquity, transgression and sin imply a group element to salvation and restoration. Eternity for each of us who are in Christ does not start when we die but has started already and will be glorified later. Jesus’ death and the new covenant births the Kingdom of God and empowers us to serve in the Kingdom of God here and now. Restoration has and will come.
Comment by Mike McNichols
4.05 pm on 17 Jun 2007
Hey Jase,
Great thread, and great opening by you. You and I have talked a lot about this issue. As for me, I don’t reject the image of substitution–it’s the penal adjective that grounds substitution in a culturally-specific metaphor (i.e. Anselm’s model).
While I also lean toward Christus Victor as a better view of the atonement, there comes with that the challenge of trying to grasp the meaning of Jesus’ death on the cross (as you point out).
My thoughts are this: The cross, because of its scandalous implications to the Jewish people, deconstructed the framework for an acceptable Messiah. The cross was a place of curse, and no Messiah was supposed to go there. Yet Jesus did go there, even willingly, thereby dismantling the widely-accepted Messianic rules and instead identifying Jesus with the tragedy of human suffering and death rather than with some sort of military victory over the Romans.
Also, Jesus’ death on a Roman cross at a certain time and specific place grounds Jesus in human history. When Paul claims to proclaim “Christ, and him crucified” (I Cor. 2:2), he acknowledges that the Christ he encountered on his way to Damascus is the same Jesus of Nazareth crucified outside the city gates of Jerusalem. This is no ethereal Christ-Spirit that gives people a model for self-actualization; this is the real Jesus, nailed to a cross in a place and time, now in a new resurrection life, victorious over death and the power of evil.
At least, that’s how I’m seeing it these days.
Thanks for this thread, Mate.
Comment by Jason
5.03 pm on 17 Jun 2007
Great thoughts mike, thank you.
Jason
Comment by Paul
3.52 pm on 19 Jun 2007
Another thought that sprung to my mind is that the christus victor model fits well with seeing the cross as a new exodus momemnt of liberation with a new liberating king – except in the new passover the blood was the ‘lamb’ of God and the death was of God’s son…
The connection with the new exodus and the sacrificial system seems to be to offer a way of bringing together christus victor and sub atonement…
Comment by Mike McNichols
4.22 pm on 20 Jun 2007
Or perhaps we might see the cross as the ultimate exile of God’s people, embodied and enacted in Jesus. It is an event devoid of hope and filled with disillusionment. In the resurrection comes vindication and the promise of liberation. In that image, God in Christ is the substitution for the people of God (who are once again facing the probability of exile) and ultimately the world. But rather than being a substitution that is designed to satisfy God’s need for justice, it is God’s substitution of himself in order to do what the people can never do for themselves (nods to N. T. Wright).
It might be that this kind of substitution is the launching pad for Christus Victor.
Comment by TyTe
4.17 pm on 21 Jun 2007
This question is a bit off tangent but relates to the mechanics of atonement (lol – now there is an oxymoron) Anyway…
How can we say that ‘Jesus died for the sins of the whole world’ and yet, people are not forgiven until they repent?
On the one hand, Jesus asks us to freely forgive, forgave while on the cross, and forgave when it wasn’t even asked for, and yet on the other hand he tells us we are forgiven when we forgive others.
When Jesus died on the cross was it that we ‘can’ be forgiven or that we ‘are’ forgiven?
What I want to say is that we are all forgiven – Jesus dealt with sin upon the cross once and for all – and yet we are not all in relationship. We still have to respond to the cross and receive that forgiveness.
When I meet someone who is not in a relationship with Christ, I can tell them they are unconditionally loved, however, can I tell them that they are unconditionally forgiven?
Comment by Helen
7.27 pm on 21 Jun 2007
TyTe, my sense is that Spencer Burke would say yes, you can tell them they are unconditionally forgiven – but lots of other Christians would say no, that’s not correct.
Comment by Paul
11.26 pm on 21 Jun 2007
Hi TyTe, it’s an interesting comment – did Jesus die for the sins of the whole world or did he die because he loved the world that he wanted to make a way for all of us to follow us to and through the cross? Jesus becomes the way of connection and reconcilliation and it is in and through him that we are forgiven and restored and invited in/through/with him to the same sort of life/servanthood/suffering/sacrifice/selflessness to help others experience and chose his way?
Comment by Jason
10.05 am on 22 Jun 2007
Hi TyTe, some of the books I recommended offer some good answers, and overviews of different approaches in church history. Some bible verses look as though there is something universal for everyone, and others speak of the need for people to make a response to the death and life of Jesus.
Comment by TyTe
8.38 pm on 21 Jun 2007
Sorry – Helen, I suppose I must answer this question for myself and this isn’t a discussion forum after all. Thanks for the link though as there are some interesting discussions on this topic on Ooze.
Comment by Helen
10.12 pm on 21 Jun 2007
TyTe – sometimes there is discussion on here, but mostly when posts are new up.
Comment by TyTe
3.07 pm on 22 Jun 2007
Thanks all. I have given this a great deal of thought, done some reading and thrown in a bit of prayer too. ;)
I think that it is a mix of both extremes! I can explain it as thus and still uphold scripture:
God has the power to withhold forgiveness and God does not ‘need’ to forgive because God does not ‘need’ as humans do. We need to forgive because we are human and, as we know, unforgiveness is damaging to self. However, God has chosen to forgive the world through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus.
If this were not the case, then we would have to repent to receive forgiveness and that would arguably be salvation by works. Also, it would mean that God calls us to do something that he does not do himself, and so on.
However, forgiveness from God does not mean we are saved or in relationship with Him. What is forgiveness from God if it is not mediated, communicated or received?
So, although it is possible to say that God unconditionally forgives those who do not know Him, that forgiveness, as part of a covenant relationship, needs to be responded to.
Comment by Helen
6.28 pm on 22 Jun 2007
TyTe, I’m not sure I follow the end of what you said.
If forgiveness remits hell as an eternal destiny then it’s valuable to be forgiven whether you know about it or not and whether you respond to it or not.
The orthodox Christian position – not forgiven until forgiveness is received – reflects a belief that hell is not remitted until then.
(Yes there are nuances to that)
If you say God has remitted hell for everyone already then that’s more of a Spencer Burke position than an orthodox one. (He does allow for opt-out – you can still go to hell if you want to – as best I understand his beliefs)
Comment by Alex
5.13 am on 23 Jun 2007
Hey Jason,
I have just started writing in a very similar vein over at my blog. Check it out sometime. Thanks for the post!
Comment by TyTe
9.51 am on 23 Jun 2007
Thanks Helen. It sounds like Spencer Burke is a universalist – that everyone is saved but it is eternally possible to opt out. I would not describe myself as a universalist – that everyone ‘is’ or ‘will be’ saved. Certianly, not everyone ‘is’ saved, and on the ‘will be’, well, God only knows!
I don’t think unconditional forgiveness remits hell. That’s a whole ‘nother topic for discussion because it depends on how you define hell and salvation and there are a variety of views on that topic too!
With regard to my last line…
If you punch me on the nose (leaving aside the need for me to forgive you for my own sake because I am human) I have two options. The first is to forgive you and extend my hand to you, and the second is to forgive you if you say sorry first. Either way, the relationship is not restored until you repent.
Comment by Jason
10.45 am on 23 Jun 2007
TyTe, if you go here for links to previous posts on this site, that include a review of Spencer’s book I made, a piece in inclusive and exclusivism/universalism, and some other related pieces. I hope they might help in some way.
Jason
Comment by Helen
12.56 pm on 25 Jun 2007
TyTe, yes, I understand saying “I forgive you” is a step towards reconciliation, but other things are required too, such as repentance.
Comment by TyTe
1.15 pm on 25 Jun 2007
Yes, agreed. :) Sorry, I think I see why I might have confused things. I used different words – responded to, recieved, communicated rather than repent – but yes, repentance is essential.
Comment by Helen
1.30 pm on 25 Jun 2007
No need to apologize TyTe – in a conversation between people who don’t know each other it usually takes time to understand where the other person is coming from! (In my experience)
Comment by TyTe
1.55 pm on 23 Jun 2007
Thanks Jason
I understand the different viewpoints on inclusivism and exclusivism (although the universalists I know would disagree with the definition of universalism you posted – perhaps it has changed?).
Please forgive me, but there seems to be a great pre-occupation amongst Christians about eternal destiny – as if that is what salvation and the focus of the gospel is all about. I think that connecting forgiveness with eternal destiny is not the whole picture. If you hurt me, I can forgive you but in what way is our relationship restored?
Comment by Jason
7.00 am on 25 Jun 2007
I think you’re right TyTe
>Please forgive me, but there seems to be a great pre-occupation amongst Christians about eternal destiny – as if that is what salvation and the focus of the gospel is all about. I think that connecting forgiveness with eternal destiny is not the whole picture. If you hurt me, I can forgive you but in what way is our relationship restored?
Pingback by Smatterings: Theories of Atonement at Swimming in the Divine Chaos…
8.08 am on 2 Jul 2007
[...] this post: Christus Victor: Atonement for the Postmodern World? by Jason Clark Jason underscores a number of the reasons why the Christus Victor theory has so much resonance with [...]
Comment by John Norris (ex-SWLV)
11.47 pm on 3 Jul 2007
Hi Jason, I left the church because I could no longer stomach subsitutionary atonement, ie, an angry, just, (albeit loving) God requiring the blood sacrifice of his Son. But maybe you are more liberal these days?
Comment by Jason
7.35 am on 4 Jul 2007
HI John, great to hear from you! I don’t know if that makes me more liberal, but there are many other ways to understand substitutionary atonement, as well as other understandings of atonement that are all christian and part of church history. Maybe it’s more about recovery of things we lost.
Comment by John Norris (ex-SWLV)
3.50 pm on 5 Jul 2007
Thanks for your reply, Jase. I checked Wikipedia and re-read this blog entry. I guess my problem is more with Christus Redemptor (ie penal substitution – which I reject) not so much Christus Victor. I now see Christianity as having taken on myths from surrounding pagan religions, eg the virgin birth, blood sacrifice to appease angry gods etc. Definitely influenced by the broader cultural context!
Comment by Jason
4.13 pm on 5 Jul 2007
Hi John. Whilst wikepedia gives a good overview of motifs of atonement, it’s a little shaky on it’s davinci code like links to the virgin birth and blood sacrifices.
I’m still orthodox, in the deepest and broadest sense of the church, that the virgin birth and the willing sacrifice by Jesus, including his blood, are christian despite and because of resonances with the surrounding culture.
Comment by edward pillar
8.31 am on 4 Jul 2007
this continues to be a fascinating thread… However, i do wonder whether the death of jesus – in historical terms – should be seen for what it was: murder!
The Acts of the Apostles says absolutely nothing about atonement. The only ref to the reason why Jesus died is found in Acts 17 where Paul is in Thessalonica ‘explaining and proving that the Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead.’
the focus in Acts on the death of Jesus is – as Stephen announces: “You stiff-necked people, with uncircumcised hearts and ears! You are just like your fathers: You always resist the Holy Spirit! Was there ever a prophet your fathers did not persecute? They even killed those who predicted the coming of the Righteous One. And now you have betrayed and murdered him.”
Atonement as the explanation for the death of Jesus on the cross is a much later idea – and it does not appear to be the central doctrine for the early church as it is for the church today.
Why has the death of Jesus become so central? Why not the resurrection? – which is the key announcement of the early church?
All this discussion about modes of atonement is very interesting, but ultimately seems to be off the point.
time for that heresy hearing…?
Comment by Jason Clark
1.58 pm on 4 Jul 2007
Edward, whilst theories about the crucifixion developed a good 100 years into the life of the early church as atonement theories, the cross, and cetrnality of crucifixion, seem to be a major part of Jesus teaching and that of the NT. The death of christ is key to the gospel, but alongside his life and resurrection.
Focusing on one aspect, life, death or resurrection is detrimental, yes?
So I guess I’m saying theories of the atonement are later in the church, but the importance of christ suffering and dting with lots of bible verses saying Jesus needed to, had to and chose, are central to Christianity. So we can say atonement is central, but our prefered theories about atonement might not be?
Comment by TyTe
11.27 am on 4 Jul 2007
I thought atonement was actually an earlier idea from Judaism – that God’s anointed one would come who would deal with sin once and for all and not just a later idea?
But I agree. One thing emerging theology has done for me is help point out the imbalance of our focus on the cross. For example, when I preach, I am careful to emphasise ‘the life, death and resurrection’ of Jesus rather than just ‘the cross’ of Jesus.
Also, it is good to see that there are many ways of looking at the cross of Jesus. Tom Smail’s – Windows on the Cross was a helpful eye-opener when I first read it (although there are perhaps more views than expressed in the book)
Comment by edward pillar
1.48 pm on 4 Jul 2007
thanks for your comments Tyte. j
just to say: my suggestion that atonement is a later idea… what i mean (and what i said) is that: the ‘interpretation’ of the death of jesus as atonement appears to be a later idea – not evidenced in Acts of the Apostles at all.
i do wonder whether Paul – in writing about the death of Jesus as atonement – is responding to questions pertaining to whether jesus could be the Messiah seeing as he had died the death of one who was cursed. Would Paul have considered the idea otherwise…?
Paul – and the early Church, clearly had to try to make sense of the death of Jesus if their message was to carry weight. The way that they thus interpreted the death of Jesus was as that of the suffering servant atoning for sin.
But, it does appear that this was NOT the obvious – as clear as the day – interpretation that was to be put on the death of jesus. I.e. We mustn’t think that as soon as Jesus was raised from the dead, the penny dropped in the disciples’ minds and they said, ‘of course, it’s obvious, jesus’ death is atonement for the sins of the world.’ I don’t think it was that obvious to them. it would have been a terrible puzzle for many years, perhaps even an embarrassment that was only bearable by the conviction that Jesus had been raised from the dead.
this for me challenges the acceptance of atonement as the obvious centre of Christian theology today.
this is of course (in my own little mind) a work in progress…!
blessings
Comment by Jason Clark
2.05 pm on 4 Jul 2007
Hi edward, I’m not a biblical scholar, but given the Luke wrote acts, and passages Like Act 20:8, there is plenty of room to see atotenment in Luke/Acts (LUke 22:19-20).
But Like you, atonement isn’t the centre of christianity for me, but it is at the heart of what is going on.
Comment by Jason Clark
2.00 pm on 4 Jul 2007
Hi Tyte, atonement was a concept in judaism, and we have to undertand the early churches understanding of atonement through that experience.
Tom Smail is superb, that’s a great book.
Comment by Roy
4.33 pm on 17 Dec 2007
A great couple of books to pick up and read are Jerry Bridges, THE GREAT EXCHANGE, and John Piper’s THE FUTURE OF JUSTIFICATION. Both books are full of Scripture and offer a biblical understanding of the nature of the atonement of Christ.
Comments are now closed.