Edgework

Our survey of the dominant atonement theories throughout the Christian era illustrates that they have all been heavily influenced by the political and social contexts of the times in which they came to light. On the positive side, this was inevitable because the essence of the gospel needed to be presented in thought categories familiar to people who heard the message. On the negative side, this exercise at times tended to color the message with tones not consistent with the biblical message. And furthermore, these theories tended to become dogma which did not resonate well with people of later generations in different life situations.

The challenge for modern Christians, then, is to find a way forward that allows us to keep telling the Jesus story with integrity in our time. There are a number of options available to us and it is crucial that we come up with good possibilities or we run the risk of making the gospel of Christ unintelligible and/or irrelevant to our contemporaries.

One way forward is to double down on one of the theories that have emerged over the past two millennia. Some evangelicals have done this by declaring the penal substitutionary atonement theory to be solid biblical teaching and making belief in that doctrine a test of faithfulness. Others have decided to cling tightly to one of the other theories. Personally, I think this is a dead end which does not bode well for an authentic and effective apologetic in our times.

Beyond this option I see at least three possibilities: one, rework one or the other of the main atonement theories to align it more clearly with biblical teaching; two, develop new theories that make use of contemporary thought categories; and three, abandon the attempt to find the best “theory” to explain the work of Christ and look for creative ways to simply tell the Jesus story. Although the boundaries between these options may at times overlap, the new telling of the story of Jesus will have a ring to it that is good news for all who hear it today.

While I don’t suggest that we must all agree on precisely which one of the new approaches we will go with, I do contend that entering this dialogue is essential if we want to make the gospel relevant in our time. The older, standard atonement theories are simply not adequate for the third millennium A.D.

I begin, then, with an example of the first option cited above. In his book, The Nonviolent Atonement, J. Denny Weaver begins with the “classic” version of the Christus victor atonement theory and reworks it into what he calls the “narrative” Christus victor atonement theory.

Weaver’s starting point is the conclusion of his earlier book, The Nonviolent God, in which he makes a strong case for God being nonviolent. That truth, says Weaver, “…should be visible in expressions of Christology and atonement” (8). It is on that basis that he chooses the only atonement theory that does not “require” the death of Jesus, the “classic” Christus victory theory of atonement, to rework into what he considers to be a more biblical teaching.

Weaver argues that the book of Revelation is in fact another “gospel” that pictures the post-resurrected Christ involved in a “cosmic” battle against evil in a non-violent manner. It acts as an encouragement to first-century Christians to remain faithful to the death without resorting to violence for self-protection. While the “classic” version of the theory acknowledges that the life and teachings of Jesus already confront evil, the focus seems to be mostly on his cosmic battle against evil. So Christ’s cosmic victory over evil comes as an assurance to Jesus’ followers that following him in the way of peace – back in history – is the essence of what it means to be a Christian.

From Weaver’s perspective, the four traditional gospels “…portray the same confrontation from the earthbound perspective of those who walked the dusty roads of Palestine as companions of Jesus” (35). In other words, the work of Christ is done largely within the confines of the history of God’s people, not somewhere in the heavenly realms. Thus, “Narrative Christus Victor is a way of reading the entire history of God’s people, with the life, death and resurrection of Jesus as the culminating revelation of the reign of God in history, whereas the various versions of satisfaction atonement concern a legal construct or an abstract formula that functions outside and apart from history” (85).

So by way of comparison, the “narrative” version of Christus Victor focuses more directly on how Jesus challenged the violent powers that kept people enslaved. He healed the sick, forgave sinners freely, demonstrated love and compassion and challenged the power structures that enslaved people. “Since Jesus’ mission was not to die but to make visible the reign of God, it is quite explicit that neither God nor the reign of God needs Jesus’ death in the way that his death is irreducibly needed in satisfaction atonement” (89). So the agent of Jesus’ death is not God, as in other theories, but the powers of evil.

Even though Jesus’ death was not needed, says Weaver, his resurrection validates that the way of Jesus, which he had demonstrated throughout life, is the way of God for God’s people who follow in his way. Weaver says this narrative approach to atonement is best seen in the parable of the Prodigal Son, which he renames, the parable of the Forgiving Father. “…without demanding compensation or punishment, the father extended the forgiveness that was always on offer” (95).

While bearing significant resemblance to the “classic” Christus victor theory, Weaver’s “narrative” version places more emphasis on the life, teachings and ministry of Jesus within history – something which Anabaptists might want to celebrate. Weaver claims the “narrative” version he endorses was in fact the precursor to the “classic” version developed by Ireneaus in the second century A.D.