Edgework

In the generation following Anselm’s introduction of the satisfaction atonement theory, Peter Abelard (1079 – 1142) mounted a spirited defense of a much older view known as the moral influence atonement theory. There is evidence that this view of atonement was already articulated in the second and third centuries A.D. and in Augustine’s works, but most often was cited alongside other views. So, contrary to popular opinion, Abelard did not come up with a new theory but was an ardent defender of traditional theology in the face of the new directions Anselm was attempting to take the church in the West. The church in the East, having separated from the West in 1054, never did have to contend with the likes of Anselm and Calvin and their theories.

In her book, Executing God, Sharon L. Baker provides us with a concise summary of the moral influence atonement theory:

We sinned and separated ourselves from God’s love. Because of sin, we lost sight of how to live according to God’s will. But God sent Jesus to demonstrate God’s love and to give us an example of how we should live. Jesus served as a perfect example by fully revealing God’s love to us. By dying on the cross, Jesus demonstrated the extravagance of divine grace and the lengths to which God will go in order to redeem us… When we look upon the cross of Christ and see God’s incredible love for us, we desire union with that love. Our desire acts as an invitation to the Holy Spirit who then infuses us, fills us, and empowers us. Through the Holy Spirit, God pours the divine love into our hearts (Romans 5:5) and by doing so, justifies us and saves us by forgiving our sin. Because of the power of God’s Spirit, we then live our redeemed lives in imitation of God’s love revealed in Jesus (60).

The moral influence atonement theory has had serious conflict with all satisfaction and penal atonement models for more than 900 years. Especially since the Reformation, liberal Protestants have typically adopted moral influence ideas whereas conservative Protestants have embraced satisfaction and penal notions regarding atonement. Liberals point to the many biblical references focusing on moral exhortation, morality as a basis for final judgment and the effect of Jesus’ life and death on us in terms of moral change. Conservatives point instead to those passages which indicate that salvation comes through faith, not through moral works.

The moral influence atonement theory brings with it some strengths, especially in comparison to satisfaction and penal theories.

1. It focuses on the life, teachings, death and resurrection of Christ rather than exclusively on his death.
2. It highlights God’s love instead of assuming that God is retributive by nature.
3. God is not in need of any kind of satisfaction to appease his offended honor.
4. God forgives sins unconditionally if we receive God’s love through the Holy Spirit, thus highlighting grace.
5. It provides a model for how disciples should live, consequently making ethics more central than in other models.
6. It emphasizes the work of the Holy Spirit in making this model operative in the life of people seeking salvation.
7. It is not difficult to find scriptural support that encourages us to follow Christ’s example. See, for example, John 13:15, Philippians 2:1-11, and 1 Peter 2:21-25. But perhaps I John 3:16 says it best: “We know love by this, that he (Jesus) laid down his life for us – and we ought to lay down our lives for one another.” As well, there is biblical support for the active participation of the Holy Spirit in providing salvation, as in Romans 5:5: “God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit he has given to us.”

At the same time there are some weaknesses discernable in the moral influence atonement theory:

1. While it deals with sin subjectively, that is in the experience of persons, it fails to deal with sin objectively, that is sin that is operative on a cosmic level.
2. It is individualistic in character, focusing on how persons are moved to love and be reconciled to God. However, there seems to be little awareness of how such reconciliation moves one toward reconciliation with others.
3. God still needs the tortured death of Jesus to accomplish his purposes, even though that death does not include appeasement or vindication. The theory does not explain why Jesus had to die in order to activate unconditional forgiveness.
4. While it challenges the notion of a vindictive, punishing God, it does so by speaking loudly about God’s love and softly about God’s judgment. It would have done better to depict God’s judgment as part of his love.
5. In spite of insisting that the Holy Spirit makes this model operative, it is relatively easy to misrepresent the moral influence atonement theory as a works based salvation. This is one of the major reasons evangelicals have tended to reject it outright.

Given the fact that there appear to be more strengths than weaknesses associated with this theory, it is somewhat surprising that it was so easily pushed off the table by conservatives in favor of satisfaction and penal models. Historically, this theory had been cited alongside other views in the first millennium, and thus did not have to carry the full weight of atonement thinking. Perhaps Abelard’s attempt to make it “the” central teaching on atonement made it unpalatable to conservatives, especially following the Reformation. A recent evangelical, John Stott (1921-2011), attempted to harmonize the moral influence and penal theories but most conservative Christians did not welcome this move.

My main concern with this theory is that God the Father still required Jesus’ torturous death to teach us about God’s love. So I think we need to keep pushing back into the first millennium of Christian history to find other ways of speaking about the redemptive work of Christ.