Ben Meyers over at Faith and Theology has written a fascinating post entitled How Does Jesus Save? An Alternative Typology (against Aulen). Meyers critiques Aulen's threefold typology argued in Christus Victor as too simplistic and ultimately misrepresentative of the Christus Victor ransom theory (he overstresses the role of the devil in Patristic writings). Meyers proposes that the dominant understandings of atonement during the Patristic (Classical) period fit in one or more of the following categories: (1) Christ the Second Adam, (2) Christ the Sacrifice, (3) Christ the Teacher, (4) Christ the Brother, (5) Christ the Life-Giver, and (6) Christ the Healer.
Right off the get-go it is evident that the early church had much more theological reflection on Christ's saving work than our current American church. Today, most have settled with Penal Substitutionary atonement as the sole model, and ignored all other models. This is blatant reduction. Clearly, the early Church saw the redemptive work of God as a multi-faceted event. For the church fathers, one theory of atonement was insufficient to make sense of all that Jesus had done.
One of my favorite features in Classical Christianity is the salvific value they place in, not only Christ's death, but also his incarnation, life/ministry, and resurrection. They understood the Gospels as the Gospel. Resurrection was not just a tag-on to the cross--it was the climax. Jesus' person, through and through, brought redemption to the world--not just his cross.
I hope to see the evangelical church embody the reformers' spirit and go Ad Fontes again to recover the richness of Classical atonement theology. We might find ourselves kneeling again in awe at the great mystery that is Salvation.
No comments:
Post a Comment