Angles of the Cross: Part One

Due to the nature of the topic, the church universal has yet to formulate a unified doctrine of the atonement. This article, written in light of the Anabaptist tradition where multiple atonement models have oftentimes been held in tandem,¹Frances F. Hiebert, “The Atonement in Anabaptist Theology,” Direction 30, no. 2 (Fall 2001), http://www.directionjournal.org/30/2/atonement-in-anabaptist-theology.html#Note15 (accessed August 15, 2016), 132. argues that three of the more popular models of the atonement (Christus Victor, satisfaction, and moral exemplar) can indeed be viewed as being complementary and mutually beneficial, despite those who would say otherwise. Part one will briefly review each model, including several critical remarks, followed by a short section detailing some of the initial concerns with this approach. Part two will deal with three topics in the context of the atonement (sin, the Incarnation, and cross) and how the aforementioned models can be utilized cohesively alongside one another.²This article was originally a paper written for CH503: The Church’s Understanding of Church, Humanity, and Christian Life in Its Theological Reflection; Fuller Theological Seminary, Summer Quarter 2016.

Christ the Victor

Christus Victor, often called the “classic view,” has received a resurgence in popularity in the past hundred years, thanks to Gustaf Aulén’s Christus Victor. In it, Aulén argues this view was held by the early church and was largely forgotten in the wake of what we now refer to as the satisfaction approach. The book is an attempt to argue for Christus Victor’s validity by way of a historical approach. As we will see, however, this undertaking is not without critique.

Despite variations within contemporary circles, advocates of the Christus Victor view the central theme of atonement as a “Divine conflict and victory… where Christ… fights against and triumphs over the evil powers of the world.”³Gustaf Aulén, Christus Victor (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1969), 4. There is little to no emphasis on the punitive element of Jesus’ sacrifice. Jesus’ sole mission is not to assuage the wrath of God; instead, he has come to dismantle and disempower the devil.⁴1 John 3:8. Through this cosmic battle between good and evil, restoration and reconciliation between creator and creation occurs.

Repeatedly, however, the “historical foundations of Aulén’s approach [have been] called into question.”⁵Alister McGrath, Christian Theology (5^th ed., Malden: Blackwell Publishers, 2011), 325. While the idea of Christ as victor is present within the early church, there are other views to be found, as well, including a ransom approach, recapitulation, and Athanasius’s magnum opus, On the Incarnation, one of the finest treatises of the atonement based around the very act of the Incarnation. Rather, “if any theory could justly lay claim to the title of ‘the classical theory of the atonement,’ it would be the notion of redemption through unity with Christ.”⁶Ibid.

Sacrifice and Shame

Anselm is high up on the list of theologians who, more often than not, are quoted and discussed with malice and disgust rather than affirmation or praise. Written at the end of the 11^th century, Anselm’s Cur Deus Homo details a view of the atonement where, due to humanity’s lack of obedience, God’s purposes for said humanity are shaken and, since God’s will must come to pass, he clothes himself in flesh via the Incarnation and provides satisfaction for our sins. According to Anselm, in order to make this satisfaction for sins, someone needed to be able to give God something greater than all he already possessed, which only leaves God left to pay this debt.⁷Anselm, Cur Deus Homo, II.6. However, humanity, the offending party, still had to pay the debt somehow, which necessitated the Incarnation so that the human nature, and thereby God’s plan for humanity, could be restored.

The satisfaction view of atonement is not without critiques. McGrath rightly argues Anselm’s account is not explicitly trinitarian in nature.⁸McGrath, Christian Theology, 327. This is why the feminist critiques of cosmic child abuse are understandable: without an explicit mention of God, Jesus, and Holy Spirit as triune, it does appear to be an act of a Father abusing and killing his innocent Son. Understood through a trinitarian lens, however, one sees that, unified in mission, “no one took [Jesus’] life from him, but he laid it down of himself and took it again; for he had power to lay it down and take it again, as he himself said.”⁹Anselm, Cur Deus Homo, II.17a. Despite the lack of explicit mention, Anselm does not argue God punishes Jesus, but instead, through the divine mystery of the Trinity, gives up his own life.¹⁰In light of this, it should also be stated that while the view of penal substitutionary atonement is a satisfaction model of the atonement, the opposite cannot be said. This is important because while the satisfaction model will be argued for positively in this paper, the same will not be done for penal substitutionary atonement.

Inspired and Transformed

Lastly, the moral exemplarist view of the atonement is one of the more misunderstood atonement models in the theological world. Peter Abelard, a French theologian in the 11^th and 12^th centuries, is often credited as being its founder, yet this is largely due to a single line of text in his exposition on Romans. McGrath rightly points out that this atonement account is simply one of many elements to his “soteriology, which includes traditional ideas concerning Christ’s death as a sacrifice for human sin.”¹¹Alister McGrath, Historical Theology (Malden: Blackwell Publishers, 1998), 138. However, this element is important, because compared to Anselm’s more objective account of atonement, it shows the crucifixion was not only an act of self-sacrificial, or cruciform, love, but it was also powerful enough to inspire and create change within humanity. For Abelard and other advocates for moral exemplarism, Jesus’ act of cruciformity helps move humanity from a position of sinfulness to righteousness and inspires men and women alike to love as he did: selflessly.

However, this model is not without its flaws, which is largely due to divorcing it from Abelard’s overall soteriology. Moral exemplarism on its own does not explain how this act of love frees us from sin, nor does it seem to take sin seriously the way both Christus Victor and satisfaction models of the atonement do, not to mention its focus on the death of Jesus solely. As one will see below, this is why a synthesis between the models is necessary.

War and Love

In light of these cursory descriptions, it should be understandable why some would view these models as being contradictory and mutually exclusive. Upon first glance, the idea of a cosmic battle between good and evil, where God is attempting to free his creation from the snares of the devil, does not make sense if, according to the typical caricature of satisfaction atonement, God is angry and wrathful at humanity. Furthermore, if God’s anger needs to be satisfied before humanity and God can be reconciled, then how is the act of the cross truly love? Is it truly empowering to believe God, in his anger, needed to find an outlet for his rage and chose his Son instead?

However, it is important for students of theology to fairly deal with what a doctrine or model actually espouses, not a popular caricature, as issues like this arise when something is not properly understood. Reading penal substitution back into Anselm can hide the fact instead of choosing punishment, God chose the Incarnation instead.¹²Linda Peacore, The Role of Women’s Experience in Feminist Theologies of Atonement (Eugene: Pickwick Publications, 2010), 127. And viewing moral exemplarism as a solely “subjective” model of the atonement downplays the importance of Christian transformation, at the risk of viewing the atonement solely as a “get out of Hell free” card.

Keeping all of this in mind, what follows will not be a complete and inerrant model, nor does it propose to be, and while the three following topics are important, there are several others worthy of analysis (including, but not limited to, theosis, the New Covenant, and unity with Christ), yet are beyond the scope of this article. However, as it will become clear, these three models of the atonement, often seen as being mutually exclusive, are nothing but, and discussing them with these topics in mind will help dismantle this fallacy.