THE BALLAD OF FINRAEL

Written during a quiet spell at the office (1984)

THE BALLAD OF FINRAEL

   

The Sun sank slowly in the West

As Elven warriors reached the crest,

And, looking down the valley steep,

The saw the town sink into sleep.

They waited fast till silence reigned,

Then made their way down leafy lanes

Until they reached the village square

Wherein they gathered, fierce and fair.

They waited noiseless till  the dawn,

Their weapons sheathed, their ranks close-drawn.

But as the cock crowed break of day

They stole an orphan child away,

For in the land of Elvenhome

Beneath the heavens’ starry dome,

Where is no death and time runs slow,

Where crystal streams through meadows flow

While Elven voices sweetly sing,

A mortal may alone be King.

They wrapped the child in robes of green

And slipped away, by no man seen,

For though the turf was soft, and wet

From dewdrops that were forming yet,

They left no footprints in the ground

That might by sharp-eyed men be found.

They travelled far,  by eyes unseen,

Concealed by cloaks of dappled green.

With joy their ageless faces shone

Fair to eclipse the wintry sun.

Their laughter sweet and voices clear

Could scarce be heard by human ear

But as the singing of the birds,

So pure their thoughts and true their words.

They marched for days through copse and grove,

And reached at last a rocky cove

Too steep for mortals to assay,

Wherein a barque at anchor lay

Whose ivory hull did seem to fly,

Her cedar masts to touch the sky.

For many a month the vessel sailed

Towards the West, and through the veil

That separates from mortal ken

Those Lands forever close to men

(Save for the One by Starlight bless’d

Who, passing every moral test,

Shall live beneath the starry dome

And rule the land of Elvenhome).

As cold Arcturus watched benign,

The barque traversed the Borderline

And, leaving stormy seas behind

Sailed on, through Faerie oceans kind

Beneath the myriad shining stars,

Where nothing joy and sweetness mars.

And though the barque did swiftly go,

No earthly wind was felt to blow,

For love of Home propelled the Craft

Which sped on like a feathered shaft.

As weariness began to bite

The shoreline came at last in sight,

And, with one welling, liquid voice,

The Elven crew at last rejoiced

To see the Land they loved so well

Draw near across the gentle swell.

But all too soon each voice was hushed

And every heart with ice was touched.

No voice across the water hailed,

And in the darkness something wailed.

A deathly cold consumed the crew,

And in his heart each sailor knew

That while they journey’s oversea,

Some evil fate had come to be.

They walked the streets in blackest gloom,

As thunderclouds above them loomed

And blotted out the starry sky

Where Elvish thoughts do always fly.

At length they reached the palace square

And saw a black flag flying there

With words of fire that did proclaim:

“NEKROS IS KING – LET CHAOS REIGN”.

At once, a band of brutish guards

Came as from nowhere, waving swords.

The Elves, retreating, fiercely fought,

But freedom at a price was bought:

Outnumbered by their hated foes,

Nine warriors fell, and never rose.

Nekros the warlock, grim and foul,

Enshrouded in his night-black cowl,

Had found his way into the Tower

And carried off the Orb of Power

That Elvenhome at peace had kept

While all the powers of darkness slept.

Despair and death now walked abroad

As servants of the Warlock Lord.

Between the mountains and the plain,

Vast forests had for aeons lain

Where roaring falls and dappled glades

Were home to Elfdom’s earthbound shades.

There, in communion with the trees,

Lived great wild beasts in careless ease,

And there the Elven dispossessed

Rebuilt a homeland in the West.

Beyond the gaze of Warlock grim

They never ceased to harry him,

And roving bands of Elvish troops

Would strike at dawn in lightning swoops,

To ambush Nekros’ hapless men

And fade into the night again.

Thus many Black Dragoons were lost,

But Nekros did not count the cost.

In course of time, in Elvish guise,

The mortal prince grew strong and wise.

He took the name of Finrael,

And, under Elfdom’s magic spell,

Assumed the Crown as Elvenking

And wore with pride the Royal Ring.

The Warlock Lord slept deep and well,

And nothing knew of Finrael.

The sands of time flowed ever on,

And Finrael desired a son.

He searched forest kingdom wide

For one to be his queen and bride,

And found a maid called Selenai

Who won his heart and pleased his eye.

Malivar was an Elven knight,

A warrior bold who loved to fight.

He many times as time went by

Had tried to woo fair Selenai.

Now, under envy’s bitter spell,

He swore revenge on Finrael.

One day, upon an urgent Quest,

Two warriors rode into the West.

For many days they travelled far,

The King, and jealous Malivar.

Unto the Caves of Ice they came,

Where lived a beast of evil name,

A dragon with a massive horde

Of treasure, and a magic sword.

Her fangs were spears, her talons knives

With which she’s taken countless lives.

Her breath was like the Primal Flame,

And Slark the Mindworm was her name.

She only had one certain bane:

The Sword that in her caves had lain

Since Ceduil, a warrior bold,

Had perished in the caverns cold;

A sword of great renown in lore

That few had dared to wield in war;

A sword just known as Dragonbane

That many fearsome worms had slain.

The King and his unfaithful squire

Would not confront the dragon’s fire,

But of a secret entrance knew

Well hidden from the monster’s view,

Where, with a rope and iron nerves,

A man might enter unobserved.

The fearless King went in the lead,

And climbing from his rowan steed

Made fast his rope to an outcrop,

And into darkness bravely dropped.

Now Malivar, his eyes of jade,

Drew swift a silvered hunting blade,

And stooping low his work to do,

He cut his Master’s lifeline through.

Then, with a laugh both grim and gay,

He took both steeds and rode away.

Finrael in the frozen dark

Smelled the foul stench of Mindworm Slark,

And, falling to the icy floor,

He hit his head and knew no more.

“Alas! How come you home alone?

Whither is my husband gone?”

“Like Ceduil , he paid the price,

And lies within the Caves of Ice;

A victim of the Dragon’s ire,

Consumed by that undying fire.”

“I ever knew that by and by

My mortal King must one day die.

And yet I loved him more than life.

Alas for me, immortal wife.”

Marooned beneath the permafrost

Walked Finrael in the darkness lost.

Stout-hearted still, he felt no fear,

But tears of rage were ever near,

And burning like a shooting star

He cursed the name of Malivar.

As thirst and hunger took their toll,

A mad euphoria gripped his soul.

He laughed at visions fell and stark

That danced before him in the dark

To mock his noble scorn of death

Beneath the Dragon’s fiery breath.

At last a gleam of light he saw,

A moment’s glimpse and then no more;

Perhaps hallucination yet,

But off toward the light he set,

Till came he to a chamber round

In which a glowing egg he found.

Then, as in wonderment he watched

The baby dragon slowly hatched,

And though its countenance was fell

It won the heart of Finrael.

Its paper wings were frail and weak,

Its eyes unblinking, soft and meek,

And when he knelt the chick to hold,

He found its skin was dry and cold.

Without its mother’s warming fire,

The tiny life would soon expire.

Careless of life, forgetting Quest,

He hugged the creature to his breast,

And though it seared him near to death

He shared with it his anguished breath,

And caring not for all his pains,

He fed it blood from his own veins.

Then, as oblivion drew near,

Great Slark the Mindworm did appear,

Looked deep into his dying mind,

And there the gift of life did find.

From fire she wove a cradle warm

To keep her offspring safe from harm,

Then cast a spell of painless sleep

And flew into the caverns deep

With Finrael the Elvenking

Fast cradled neath her beating wing.

For many days the deeps she flew

In utter dark the caverns through,

Until her weary wings she furled

At the bright centre of the world,

Where at the planet’s very core

Unceasing springs of healing pour,

And, casting him into the streams,

She woke him from his spellbound dreams:

A man no more, for none can fade

Who in the Streams of Life have bathed.

“Brave Elvenking, my debt is paid.

Your broken frame is now remade,

And better than it was before;

New vigour you now have in store.”

“Great Dragon, in your Kind I see

A wisdom that was veiled to me.

I see your heart is pure and strong,

Your knowledge great, your memory long.

Yet in our chronicles I read

Of dragons’ cruelty and greed.”

“Your Elvish race is old and wise,

Your beauty fair delights the eyes,

Yet since before your people’s birth

We Dragonfolk have ruled the Earth.

We long have loved you, Men and Elves,

Yet ever must defend ourselves,

For ever must you fighting go

In fear of that you do not know.

And many of my Kind have died

As victims of your Elvish pride.

You owe it to our patient grace

That we have not destroyed your race,

For it is quite within our power

To wipe you out inside an hour.”

“Then hear my words, my new-found friend,

The Dragonquest is at an end.

No man shall Elf or Man conspire

To quench a Dragon’s primal fire.”

So homeward came the Elvenking,

Borne fast beneath the Dragon’s wing.

The magic sword clutched to his chest,

No longer doomed for Dragonquest,

Was now as Dragonfriend renamed

And as a tool of justice famed.

Proud Malivar, to exile banned,

Was soon to die by his own hand,

While Finrael, a man no more,

Was to his loving wife restored.

Next day, a distant cloud was seen,

All swaithed in fire but coloured green.

It closer sped and filled the sky:

A thousand dragons flying by.

Swift on to Elvenport they flew,

And came into the Warlock’s view.

His towers crumbled, soldiers fled,

But in a minute all were dead,

And Nekros in his armoured room

Was soon by primal fire consumed.

Then, as the palace fiercely burned,

The Elves unto their homes returned.

The Dragons flew into the West,

Their power unveiled, the Elves impressed.

Brave Finrael, immortal grown,

Had to give up the Elvish throne,

But in the Forestlands was Lord

And Guardian of the Magic Sword,

Forever to be famed in lore

As Ender of the Dragon War.

And soon an Elven vessel sailed

Into the East, towards the veil

That separates from mortal ken

The Lands forever closed to Men

(Save One who by the Stars is blessed

And passing every moral test

Shall Westward pass across the foam

To be crowned King of Elvenhome.

It sailed into a rocky bay

Too steep for mortals to assay,

And, troubled not by ocean’s roar,

The Elven warriors stepped ashore.

They hunted East and hunted West

To find the child the Stars had blessed,

Till, coming to a highland bleak

They felt the presence they did seek.

 

The Sun was sinking in the West

As Elven warriors reached the crest,

And, looking down the valley steep,

They watched the town sink into sleep.

They waited fast till silence reigned,

Then made their way down leafy lanes

Until they reached the village square

Wherein they gathered, fierce and fair.

They waited noiseless till  the dawn,

Their weapons sheathed, their ranks close-drawn.

Then, as the cock crowed break of day,

They stole an orphan child away,

For in the land of Elvenhome

Beneath the heavens’ starry dome,

Where is no death and time runs slow,

Where crystal streams through meadows flow

While Elven voices sweetly sing,

A mortal may alone be King.

IS THERE SUCH A THING AS "SINS"?

Responses to a Facebook friend who argues that the concept of sin is meaningless:

It is simplistic to suggest that there are no sins, only crimes. Characteristic of the coffee house philosophy of the early 20th century, such as the infamous Vienna Circle. It is an unprovable assumption that there are no higher moral laws, and is in only logical-positivistic conditioning (rather than evidence) that has led anyone to regard it as a fact. You do not have to be religious to believe in a higher law - perhaps one hardwired into human psychology via evolution because altruism and social responsibility have a survival value. Indeed, it is the growing realisation that there are higher laws that has led some high profile atheist moral philosophers to believe in God in later life, e.g. Anthony Flew and Alasdair MacIntyre. In fact Kant based his logical argument for the existence of God on the universal human sense of duty. What else but awareness of a higher law would lead people to risk their own lives by helping Jews escape from the (totally legal at the time) Holocaust? Or to risk imprisonment in our own culture by whistleblowing on immoral (but totally legal) government actions. The distinction between crime and moral offence (whether you call it sin or not) is taught as an objective fact in the national GCSE syllabus.....

I must take issue, respectfully, with you and the prevailing episteme which we all inhabit, in the way you treat assumptions as facts. It is an assumption, not a fact, that thought and conscience are purely socio-physical in their source. Psychology, criminology and anthropology cannot by their very essence perceive, much less transcend, the context within which this assumption has developed, precisely because they are sub-branches of a monist, nominalist, determinist school of philosophy which defines both their reach and their methods. By contrast, the philosophy in its entirety involves (without any religious or anti-religious bias other than in the minds of individual thinkers) a continuing evaluation of the ontological, epistemological and moral debates from all sides: monist vs. dualist, nominalist vs. realist, determinist vs. libertarian, moral absolutist vs. moral relativist vs. moral subjectivist, etc. True philosophy identifies the assumptions and the chain of logic on each side, and in every generation it throws up brilliant minds of every conviction. The source of the universe, the source of intelligence and the nature of thought and conscience and goodness are philosophical rather than scientific fields of enquiry precisely because they entail questioning rather than simply accepting the purely synthetic epistemology within which science is trapped. That is not a religious viewpoint but an objective philosophical one....

Good point about whether a non-religious philosopher ever used the word "sin". My answer would be that you are (in the nicest possible way) trying to shackle my argument by tying it to the word "sin" which I agree is a religious jargon word. However, we must get over stereotyping ethical theories (even the absolutist ones) as if they all belonged in the religious ghetto. Sin is a religious code word that encompasses all the battlegrounds in which self-interest and altruism collide, and there are plenty of secular code words for the same thing which are the proper stuff of objective philosophical debate and cannot be stereotyped as religious. The most important of these is arguably alienation (Marx), but the debate could be had in terms of utility (Bentham, Mill), duty (Kant), neurosis (Freud), social cohesion (Weber), virtue, natural law...

Regarding separating philosophical enquiry from religious or scientific enquiry, I absolutely and categorically agree. If I have given the opposite impression, I have done us all a disservice. My whole point is that scientific and religious enquiry are siblings and have a complementary and equally important role to play in the philosophical project. The point I am specifically trying to make is that good science and good religion are collaborators rather than opponents, and both in their purest form recognise the difference between analytical truths on the one hand and the contingent conclusions drawn from observation and experiment on the other. Both require assumptions in order to function, but no assumption is beyond re-evaluation.....

Believe it or not I absolutely agree. Wittgenstein is the touchstone here: each peer group has technical language which has profound symbolic meaning to members of the group. When members fail to recognise that the meaning of these words is symbolic and contextually dependent, and use them as though they had absolute meaning in relation to the world outside their circle, then language becomes an obstacle to meaning. It is valid for religious believers to talk to outsiders about sin if they are expressing their world-view; not to try to use them to describe objectively the listener's predicament.....

Therefore I cannot meaningfully tell you that you are a miserable sinner :-))) but I can meaningfully say that my peer group uses the word "sin" as shorthand for a package of alienation, remorse and internal conflict that you may possibly have experienced......


...at least, I know I have.....

Beautifully put. And although I have chosen to live within a Christian worldview, some of which I take to be absolute truth, I am not blind to the possibility that all religious doctrine is a Wittgensteinian "language game" for the kind of atonement that you advocate. I just believe that Jesus is the ultimate guide and role model in reconnecting to our original source.

WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES CHRIST MAKE? EVALUATING DIFFERENT THEOLOGICAL MODELS OF THE ATONEMENT

What Difference Does Christ Make? 

Evaluating different theological models

of the Atonement.

John Bailey

Introduction: The Penal Substitutionary Model

A prolific American preacher and peace activist begins his widely read on-line essay on the meaning of the atonement with these words:

“The foundational truth of Christianity is that Christ Jesus died on the cross for our sins (1 Cor 15:3). In this way he fulfilled the old covenant sacrificial system, reconciled us to God, and changed our lives forever. That is the doctrine of the Atonement. Its reality is not in dispute. However, many Christians struggle to understand and live this doctrine better. We know that the Atonement works; but how it works is not as clear.”   (Mattison)

In stating that Christ died “for” our sins in fulfilment of the Hebrew sacrificial system, but professing agnosticism as to the precise mechanics, the author presents a picture of the atonement that most Christians would accept. Many would go further, however, and insist on explicating the phrase “died for our sins” to mean “died in our place to suffer the divine punishment for our sins”. This more specific doctrine, known as penal substitution, is not univocally supported by the New Testament but has much to recommend it:

·      It can be argued strongly from Scripture (e.g. Ro 3:25);

·      It harmonises God’s perfect love and perfect justice;

·      It is ruthlessly honest as to the nature and cause of humanity’s predicament;

·      It makes sense of the absolute necessity of Christ’s death;

·      It tends to inspire vigorous personal and corporate evangelism.

However, it is impossible to ignore the testimony of the many Christians who have reservations about forensic and sacrificial atonement theories. Quite apart from those (e.g. J. D. Crossan) who see Christianity as divorced from the Jesus events, there are many to whom “the language of sacrifice...is either empty because it is unintelligible, or offensive because it is morally primitive.” (Heim, 2001). It is by no means certain, moreover, that forensic atonement honours the spirit of the sacrificial system depicted in the Hebrew Scriptures in quite the way its proponents claim. The Catholic historian Lawrence Boadt writes:

“Sacrifices were well known throughout the ancient world, but in Israel, unlike in some Canaanite cults, the sacrifice was never considered a magical ritual that brought God to act in a certain way. The spirit of adoration and silence and the obedience of the people before Yahweh always stand out. And when the prophets do condemn abuses of sacrifice, they almost always attack that slipping over into a conviction that God must accept this gift and then do what is requested.” (Boadt, 1984, pp.272-3)

The New Testament did not invent vicarious suffering and death,[1] but as Boadt describes the five sacrifices decreed in Leviticus 1-7 (viz. Holocausts, Grain Offerings, Peace Offerings, Sin Offerings, Guilt Offerings), it is evident that the forensic interpretation of the Cross is not a perfect conceptual match for any of them.

My conclusion is that theological models function like parables; however much they have to tell us, their analogies can only be pushed so far. Indeed, different models act as a check on one another, and I am confident that many of the alternatives put forward in good faith over the centuries can provide complementary insights into the richness of God’s saving grace.

I will be using as an organising framework for this review of some alternative models one of the key Reformed texts of modern times, Louis Berkhof’s Systematic Theology (Berkhof, 1958, pp384-391). I do so not out of unreserved concurrence with his opinions, but because he marshals all the most important theories and the key arguments against them in chronological order – an approach that often throws light on the dialectical process that produced them. And unlike Berkhof, I will be looking for helpful insights in these diverse models as well as weaknesses.

Types of Atonement Theory

Theories of the atonement cover a broad spectrum of ideas, and have been more influenced by cultural predispositions than their proponents would admit. However, they can generally be mapped in relation to the following axes:

·      Objectivity – humanity’s real situation, including God’s attitude towards us; Christ typically characterised as hero and victim;

·      Subjectivity – humanity’s perceptions of reality and its attitude towards God and others; Christ seen primarily as revelator and teacher.

Most commentators distinguish from these a third set of ideas focusing on humanity’s knowledge or understanding of its situation and potential, in which Christ is seen as reconciler and healer.[2] These ideas are present in most theories, however, and the key distinction is whether God’s or man’s attitudes are seen as paramount.

The Ransom Theory

The Ransom model belongs in the first category, the family of objective theories in which Christ is characterised as the conquering hero or sacrificial victim who brings about a difference in humanity’s situation. First proposed by Irenaeus of Lyons in the 2^nd century C.E., it was predicated on the rather dualistic belief[3] that human sin had given Satan legitimate rights over humanity. Versions of the theory differ as to just how Christ’s death annulled these rights[4], but whether by combat, fair payment or trickery God emerged victorious over the powers of darkness.

The scandal of a crucified Messiah and the psychology of a persecuted minority led the early Church Fathers to express these ideas in rather shallow triumphalistic terms,[5] but pictures of Christ as victor over dark forces are clearly biblical (1Co 15:57; Eph 4:8) and as empowering in spiritual warfare today as in their original context.[6] Gustaf Aulén’s influential “Christus Victor” (1930) stressed the authentic note of victory in Irenaeus’ theory over its mythic elements, and this theme of victory in Christ may prove particularly valuable in adapting orthodox Christian soteriology to the needs of growing churches in the Third World where spiritual and socio-economic struggles go hand-in-hand.

The Recapitulation Theory

The Recapitulation Theory, also associated with Irenaeus, held that that Christ recapitulates or replays all the elements of human life inherited from Adam – including those associated with sin. The point of the theory is that the obedience of Christ compensates for Adam’s disobedience and reverses the consequences of the Fall; in the process, he communicates immortality and a real ethical transformation to those who are united to him by faith.

Few atonement theories fit neatly into a single category. Recapitulation is primarily another way for Christ to bring about a difference in the objective human situation, i.e. a cosmos corrupted by the Fall. However, it seems to foreshadow later subjective and mystical theories in which Christ is presented as mediator of a change in humanity itself. In the mystical theory, the divine life is said to have entered the life of humanity in order to lift it to the level of the divine; Christ’s identification with men and women is such that he was able to purify human nature by his life of obedience, and able by his death to eliminate the very principle of depravity that separated humanity from God. It is the resulting progressive transformation in our subconscious nature that really constitutes redemption.

These later mystical theories generally fare better than the original Recapitulation model in explaining the value and necessity of Christ’s death, and why Christians continue to struggle morally. Nevertheless, Irenaeus’ picture of Christ as the second Adam has strong Pauline roots (e.g. Ro 5:12-21) and makes a parallel appeal to the Hebrew scriptures; it evidently helped the early church in its struggles against heresy and persecution, and there is a clear accessibility for both modern and post-modern cultures in its vision of a humanity whose heredity is blessed and cursed with conflicting moral and relational polarities.  

The Satisfaction Theory

There is a reverent and sentimental hopefulness about the atonement theories of the early church that makes them easy to warm to, however short on intellectual rigour they may appear in hindsight. In contrast, the Satisfaction Theory of Anselm, which dates from the late 11^th century, is of all models one of the hardest to like.

It was based on a sound realisation that the time-honoured Ransom Theory accorded too much status to Satan, and reasoned that if a ransom was paid at all it must have been payable to God himself. This was the first of the family of formal soteriologies that focus attention on the difference Christ’s death makes to God’s attitude vis-à-vis humanity, and it paved the way for the propitiatory language of the Protestant Reformation over 400 years later.

However, Anselm’s conception of satisfaction differed from Luther’s in at least one crucial respect: it regarded sin as an offence not against God’s perfect justice but against his personal honour. Such an offence needed to be vindicated by either punishment or satisfaction, and since God in his mercy rejected punishment the only possible source of the infinite satisfaction required was the death of his Son. Christ’s obedience was actually no more than his duty as a man, but by suffering and dying in a way he was not obligated to do by any sinfulness of his own, he delivered to God the infinite glory needed to cancel out the dishonour of human sin. In doing so he earned a “supererogatory credit” or reward that could be passed on to those who live according to the commandments of the gospel.

The distinction between this and the later theory of penal substitution may seem pedantic to some, but the differences are actually quite profound. Berkhof manages to sound condescending when he says that the concept of supererogatory credit is rather like the Catholic doctrine of penance applied to the work of Christ, but the parallels with discredited penitential practices are not imaginary. Unwittingly perhaps, Anselm brands God with the same medieval human values of status, honour and morality that underpinned duelling – the spilling of blood for the sake of honour – and the indulgence system that would one day provoke Luther to rebellion.

Anselm deserves credit for working out a God-centred objective picture of the atonement that the Reformers would build on to better effect. However, he neglected the revelatory significance of Christ’s living ministry – an omission the Reformers would rectify through a distinction between Christ’s active and passive obedience –and it is perhaps due to this that he fails to provide a credible basis for the transference of Christ’s supererogatory credit to humanity. Ultimately, his theory tends to undermine a proper sense of gratitude to Christ or moral responsibility for his suffering, and it has sometimes been disparagingly called the Commercial Theory.

The Moral Influence Theory

This foundational model of subjective atonement was advocated by Anselm’s near-contemporary Abelard, possibly in shocked reaction to the former’s suggestion that Christ’s suffering and death gave God some kind of grim satisfaction. Depicting Christ principally as Revealer and Educator, the theory holds that his death was no more or less than a revelation of divine love and solidarity in suffering that softens human hearts and leads to the repentance that brings divine forgiveness. It is firmly rooted in a certain strand of biblical theology (notably Luke/Acts and the prophetic tradition), and has attracted massive support since the Enlightenment – in fact it is probably the principal rival to sacrificialism in orthodox Christianity today.

It has been plausibly objected by Berkhof (p.387) and others that “this theory robs the atonement of its objective character, and thereby ceases to be a real theory of the atonement. It is at most only a one-sided theory of reconciliation.”[7] And whether or not this is accepted, there are other objections to Abelard’s theory:

·      It predated the scholarship that understands biblical theology as dynamic process. The leading evangelical author of the 20th century comments on Peter’s Pentecost sermon in Acts ch.2, one of the key supporting texts for this theory, “No developed doctrine of the Atonement is yet expressed” (Stott, 1990, p.75);

·      It ignores the sheer weight of sacrificial language in the New Testament, along with the many pointers to God’s justice and wrath (e.g. Romans ch. 1), and thereby risks making repentance and divine forgiveness cheap;

·      It does not really explain the need for Christ’s death, and is thus held by many to introduced a note of arbitrary cruelty into God’s supposed love.[8]

·      It does not explain how salvation reaches those who lived before the Incarnation, children, or others who are incapable of apprehending or responding to Christ’s moral influence.

As a complement to objective models, however, this theory has much to teach us about the role in salvation of human repentance and God’s forgiving heart – themes whose centrality to a proper understanding of the Hebrew sacrificial system has all too often been overlooked (Morris, 1988). Moreover, this theory need not be presented in a way that detracts from the uniqueness of salvation in Christ, and it inhabits a universal episteme that erects few barriers to transculturation. Above all it provides solid theological foundations for a Christianity that is engaged with the practical needs of the world – it is no coincidence that social reformers and campaigners for peace and justice are often deeply committed to Abelard’s picture of the atonement.

The Example Theory

Abelard’s ideas were developed in a more radical direction by the Socinians in the 16th century, in reaction to the penal substitution theory of the Protestant Reformers. This version of subjective atonement is based on a sweeping assumption that there is no principle of retributive justice in God that insists on the punishment of sin. In consequence, said Fausto Sozzini (Socinius), salvation is achievable through humanity’s own God-given moral faculties.

The Socinian theory is based on the lowest of all Christologies; Christ is not understood as divine in any meaningful sense, there is no direct connection between his death and human salvation, and in revealing the way of individual faith and obedience he is scarcely even unique.[9] Berkhof sees this as a “revival and concoction” of several ancient heresies: a Pelagian denial of human depravity, an adoptionist Christology, a Scotist attribution of arbitrariness to God’s will, and a retrograde appeal to the Anselmian ideas that he deems the Reformation to have rendered obsolete.

Berkhof is generally too sweeping in his rejection of alternatives to Reformed orthodoxy, but the crux of the matter here, as he succinctly puts it on p.388, is that “Christ is our Redeemer before He can be our example.” The Christian certainly is called to follow Christ’s example, but imitation alone is an inadequate response to God’s self-revelation.[10] Abelard’s theory is friendly to this principle as its fundamental dynamic is one of heartbreak, repentance and forgiveness. In contrast the Socinian model is an arrogant and divisive construct; it clashes directly with objective atonement theories and thus does nothing to enrich our understanding of God’s grace.

The Governmental Theory

The Governmental Theory, which still has a considerable following in Arminian and Wesleyan circles, was put forward by Huig de Groot (Grotius) in the early 17^th century in an attempt to mediate between Reformed and Socinian positions. It creates  as many problems as it solves, however. At its heart lies an assumption that the Law is a creation of God’s arbitrary will rather than an expression of his essential character and being. On this most fragile of pretexts, it is argued that God’s justice does not demand that all the Law’s requirements be met. The sinner theoretically deserves death, but God chooses to set the penalty aside for believers. In the final analysis Christ did not die in man’s place to secure forgiveness, but to demonstrate the inviolability of God’s law and so uphold his moral government.

Perhaps we see in this theory an echo of the concurrent struggle of Europe’s nation states to consolidate their own governmental authority. Either way it is fatally compromised on logical as well as theological grounds; it is superficially objective in its focus on God’s sovereignty and Christ’s sacrifice, but it attributes no substantive benefit for humankind by Christ’s life or death since it sees our forgiveness as the result of the Father’s arbitrary will to forgive. There is thus little purpose to Christ’s death beyond demonstrating the inviolability of a Law which God’s own actions have shown to be violable. The one practical value of Christ’s death in this scenario might have been as a deterrent to future infractions of the Law – had not God already shown his willingness to set the penalty aside. Most offensive of all is the suggestion that God might be existentially disintegrated, his essence and his actions mutually at odds. Indeed I am little more sure than with the Example theory that this model is truly Trinitarian.

Conclusions

I have barely scratched the surface, but I have attempted to show by a few case studies how we can enrich our understanding of Christ’s work through a humble but critical consideration of different theological models. I would like to finish by demonstrating with the aid of quotations from three credible theologians that this approach is neither arbitrary nor vague.

Dr. Tom Wright, a highly respected Anglican theologian and former Bishop of Durham, describes the Cross in one characteristic passage as

“the moment when the evil and pain of all the world were heaped up into one place, there to be dealt with once and for all… 

“Jesus’ final great act of love draws to a climax all those actions throughout his ministry…in which we see the deeply human…and characteristically God-filled Jesus truly at work.”  (Wright, 2000, p.68)

If Wright does not feel a need to identify the precise mechanism by which this great act of love deals with the world’s evil and pain, Dr. Michael Ramsey, another leading Anglican thinker of the 20^th century, sees not the human theological construct of atonement but rather the God-given signs of Death and Resurrection as the events that characterise the nature of Christianity. He continues,

“It is a gospel of life through death, of losing life so as to find it . . . the Christian’s act of allegiance to the risen Lord Jesus was, and still is, an act of acceptance of the way of the Cross.” (Ramsey, 1985, p.31).

And finally the influential Catholic liturgist James Empereur, SJ, stresses the importance of reserve in using theological models:

“Tolerance of pluralism is the only solution. No benefit will result from trying to impose any one model as the last word . . . [The theologian] is called to go beyond these images. He/she must use the image in a reflective and critical way . . . The use of models in theology should emphasise for us that at no time do our concepts and symbols actually capture the infinite that lies behind our liturgical experiences. And since all models have their limitations, the task is to work with several models as complementary.”  (Empereur, 1987, p.66)

I continue to believe that Christ died in my place for my sins, and I find in forensic theories the most complete and satisfying explanation of his work. However, some of the alternative frameworks I have outlined help to open up the extraordinary richness in God’s mercy in a way that no one intellectual construct ever could.

In consequence, and in spite of Stott’s persuasive argument for “an understanding of [the atonement] which reclaims from misrepresentation the great biblical concepts of ‘substitution’, ‘satisfaction’ and ‘propitiation’” (Stott, 1986, p.10), I find the term “participation” as used by Mattison in some ways more illuminating; it integrates more smoothly with non-sacrificial language, and above all it emphasises our calling to go to the cross with Christ rather than merely letting him occupy it for us. It is in these terms that I can most clearly see Christ’s blood as the seal on a new covenant between God and man, and preach to myself and others an active sacrificial concern for the needs of a suffering world.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

AULÉN, G. (1969) Christus Victor: An Historical Study of the Three Main Types of the Idea of the Atonement New York, Macmillan.

BELLINGER, C. (2001) Bibliography on the Doctrine of the Atonement [on-line] Available: http://www.gospelcom.net/regent/regentnew/library/Biblio_atonement.html

BERKHOF, L. (1958) Systematic Theology Edinburgh, Banner of Truth Trust.

BOADT, L. (1984) Reading the Old Testament: An Introduction New York, Paulist Press.

­EHRMAN, B. D. (2000) The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings New York, Oxford University Press.

EMPEREUR, J. (1987) Worship: Exploring the Sacred Washington D.C., The Pastoral Press.

HEIM, S. M. (2001) “Why Does Jesus’ Death Matter?” in The Christian Century 7 March 2001, pp.12-17 [online] Available: http://www.religion-online.org/cgi-bin/relsearchd.dll/showarticle?item_id=2138

KÜNG, H. (1993) Credo: The Apostles’ Creed Explained for Today London, SCM Press.

MATTISON, M. M. (undated) “The Meaning of the Atonement” in The Open House Church Articles [online] Available: http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/openhse/atonement.html

MCGRATH, A. E. (1998) Historical Theology: An Introduction to the History of Christian Thought Oxford, Blackwell Publishing.

MCGRATH, A. E., Ed. (2001a) The Christian Theology Reader, 2^nd Ed. Oxford, Blackwell Publishing.

MCGRATH, A. E. (2001b) Christian Theology: An Introduction, 3rd Ed. Oxford, Blackwell Publishing.

MORRIS, L. L. (1988) “Atonement” in Ferguson, S. B. and Wright, D. F., Ed. New Dictionary of Theology Leicester, Inter-Varsity Press.

RAMSEY, M. (1985) The Christian Priest Today London, SPCK

SCHAFF, P. (undated) “The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopaedia of Religious Knowledge” in Christian Classics Ethereal Library [online] Available: http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/encyc/encyc02/htm/iv.vi.lxv.htm

SIDER, R. J. (1993) Good News and Good Works: A Theology for the Whole Gospel Grand Rapids, MI; Baker Books.

STOTT, J. R. W. (1986) The Cross of Christ Leicester, Inter-Varsity Press.

STOTT, J. R. W. (1990) The Message of Acts Leicester, Inter-Varsity Press.

           

UNDERHILL, E. (1944) Light of Christ London, Longmans.

  

WRIGHT, N. T. (1996) Jesus and the Victory of God (Christian Origins and the Question of God vol. 2) London, SPCK.

WRIGHT, N. T. (2000) The Challenge of Jesus London, SPCK.

---

[1] The idea was common to both Jewish and Greek thought; it occurs more than once in the deutero-canonical writings and is the central device in Euripides’ drama Alcestis of around 438 B.C.E. (Ehrman, 2000, p.257).

[2] The English mystic Evelyn Underhill, for example, refers to Christ the Teacher, Christ the Healer and Christ the Rescuer (Underhill, 1944).

[3] Perhaps resulting from an over-literal reading of Mk 10:45, which states that Christ died “to give his life as a ransom for many”.

[4] Gregory the Great, for example, saw Christ’s humanity as bait and his divinity as the hook.

[5] Such was the embarrassment of the crucifixion to much of the early church, it was not until the conversion of Constantine that the cross achieved emblematic status (Küng, 1993, p.65).

[6] Indeed, the theory still attracts considerable popular support. I quote from a recent and widely circulated e-mail chain letter (no attribution available): “And what will you do when you get done with [humanity]?” Jesus asked. “Oh, I’ll kill ‘em,” Satan glared proudly. “How much do you want for them?” Jesus asked . . . Satan looked at Jesus and sneered, “All your tears, and all your blood.” Jesus said, “DONE!” Then He paid the price.

[7] Over against Berkhof, it could be argued that reconciliation is at the heart of the atonement – the term itself is thought to have been coined by Tyndale as a translation of the L. reconciliatio. This counter-argument cannot be pushed too far, however, as reconciliatio itself is not a wholly adequate translation of the Gk. katallage, which in Hellenised Jewish culture carried rich overtones of exchange (Gk. vb. katallasso) as well as the interrelated Hebrew concepts of “covering” (kopher) and ritual atonement (kipper).

[8] As Berkhof states in slightly cumbersome syntax on p.387, “The sufferings and death of Christ were a manifestation of God’s love only, if it was the only way to save sinners.”

[9] Although there is an anomalous and rather Anselmian assumption in the Example Theory that Christ passes on to believers some kind of reward received for his own obedience.

[10] As George Bernard Shaw has Don Juan answer a companion in Hell who is complaining that all her good deeds have been wasted: “No: you were fully and clearly warned. For your bad deeds, vicarious atonement, mercy without justice. For your good deeds, justice without mercy. We have many good people here.” (Man and Superman Act III, s.166)

BEN & KERRY'S WEDDING SERMON

   
Good afternoon. This is billed as “An address to the couple on Christian marriage”, but it’s not just addressed to the couple. It’s primarily to them of course, but it’s meant for everyone here, not least myself; I also need to be reminded regularly of what I’m about to say. 

May I start by saying that I cannot find the words to express the sense of privilege I feel at being invited to speak at this momentous day in the lives of Ben, Kerry, and the assembled families whom they’re about to unite into one family.

The family is something that we all too often take for granted. If I were to go out into the streets of my home town, and pick on people at random to ask what makes up the basic building block of society, I know most people in our culture would answer, ‘the individual’. But that’s a very modern, and peculiarly Anglo-American way of looking at society. The Christian view, and indeed the view of most other cultures around the world, is that the

basic building block of society is not the individual person but the family unit. If you think of the society we inhabit as a wall, the individual bricks in that wall are not me, and Fred, and you, and you, and you....rather the building blocks are families. And if the individual building blocks, families, break down in large enough numbers, it can only be a matter of time before the whole structure - the whole society - itself collapses. That is why from the Christian viewpoint, Ben and Kerry, you are not just committing yourselves to one another; you are committing yourselves to upholding a stable and inclusive and orderly society, a society in which personal relationships in general should reflect the mutual love, respect and goodwill that you show within the marriage.

Thus far I imagine most people here, whether or not they think of themselves as religious, will understand and even sympathise with this Christian viewpoint. However, the Bible says some things about marriage that can be difficult for even committed Christians fully to understand and accept.

For example, parts of the Bible suggest that when a couple marry, they somehow fuse together and become a single, composite being. While not everyone here will fully accept that picture of marriage, I think pretty well everyone will grasp its implications: namely that once you are married you cannot put your own interest ahead of your partner’s; the image of husband and wife as a single entity, fused together in eternity, speaks powerfully of the long-term commitment, patience and self-sacrifice needed to make family life work. Ben & Kerry, this means each of you putting the other first. It means keeping your interests harnessed together such that the many things you will disagree on during your life together never get the chance to drive a wedge between you. In short, it does mean acting always as if you are one person, such that what is good or bad for either one of you is seen as good or bad for the other also.

A quite different but equally dramatic picture of married life is offered by St. Paul. Paul wrote many controversial things as I’m sure you know, and among the most controversial parts of his teaching are his instructions to married couples. For example, another part of the chapter from Colossians that was read earlier says:

Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.

Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them.

It’s no surprise that most young couples leave these words out of the wedding ceremony today, along with the traditional bride’s vow to ‘love, honour and obey’. But these words are less unequal, and theologically more central, to the traditional Christian understanding of marriage than is often realized. Because St. Paul holds out as the blueprint for marriage nothing less than the cosmic relationship between Jesus and the worldwide body of Christians - that is to say the Church. He instructs wives to submit to their husbands in the same way that the Church is expected to submit to Christ. And what Paul goes on to say to husbands is every bit as challenging, if not more so: they are instructed to love their wives as Christ loved the church and (this is all-important) laid down his very life for it. In other words, the picture of the wife as the husband’s servant only works if the husband is seen as the wife’s . . . sacrificial offering. (Pause for a few seconds to let everyone reflect on that thought). Each is required to put the other’s happiness and well-being before his or her own - a startling picture of submission and self-sacrifice on both sides in the interests of a stable, caring, self-sacrificial home life for the couple and their children.

I was inevitably going to get round to the topic of children, and not just because you have not just the usual two, but three pairs of potential grandparents who aren’t getting any younger and are egging you on. One of the most important qualities of marriage is that it provides a safe and stable long-term environment for bringing up children. But in the Christian tradition, children are not merely to be loved, protected and provided for.

·      Firstly, they are meant to grow up learning the difference between right and wrong from parents who are themselves upright, honest and hard-working members of society. Ben and Kerry, you are admirably equipped to provide just that kind of moral enrichment.

·      But secondly, in the Christian tradition, children are meant to grow up inherit the beliefs, values and traditions of Christianity itself, thus ensuring that the Christian faith itself is safely handed down to a new generation.

Of course, Ben and Kerry, it’s entirely up to you if and when you have children, but we know you will not begrudge us our enthusiasm to see another generation growing up to carry on your family name and the values that our united families cherish. One of the greatest comforts our generation can experience is to see our children growing up, having children of their own, and taking over the leadership of the family as we had to do as our parents aged.

Finally Ben & Kerry, it is a central part of Christian marriage that today should be an indelible memory in both of your minds - and the photographs, the gifts, and the sense and scale of the occasion are all meant to help keep this memory alive. For there may well be times in the distant future when you do find yourselves at loggerheads over some major life decision or even some relatively minor difference of opinion; there may be times when your passion for one another seems at a low ebb, or when you are filled with mutual indignation or tempted to be disloyal to one another, whether physically or just in what you say. And the hope of everyone here is that if those situations arise you will be able to look back on today, to remember the warmth, the excitement, the readings, the prayers, the promises, the overpowering love that we can all see in your eyes today, and in that moment to put aside those temptations, put aside those differences, and rejoice in what you have together.

And so to conclude, we all want to say once again, heartiest congratulations to you both on the marriage that is about to be solemnised. You make a wonderful couple and we love you deeply. We want this day to be an unforgettable experience, the memory of which will help to reinforce your love, and your total commitment and your patience with one another through all the happy, exciting, and perhaps sometimes challenging years that lie ahead of you.