Seleccione Activar Para desactivar la llamada en espera,

PSA has been presented as the predominant means of interpreting the atonement for Catholics and many Protestants denominations; equally it can be claimed that liberal

Protestantism has broadly embraced MIT. So, while the MIT can be broadly characterised as being aligned with liberal Protestantism, it is not confined to this group; many modern Anabaptists, pacifists and Mennonite groups also hold this doctrine.574 To explain, ignore or

572

Marshall, Aspects, 33.

573

Edwards, in his dialogue with Stott, comments on the prospect of ‘eternal separation’ from God which is restricted by the Lausanne Covenant to those who condemn themselves because they ‘reject Christ’. It is a concept, he argues, “That avoids the teaching that one ‘mortal’ sin earns the same punishment as a lifetime of total wickedness. By this teaching God was alleged to condemn the guilty to hell without adhering to the elementary principle of justice that the gravity of the punishment must fit the gravity of the crime.” Edwards with Stott, Essentials, 292.

574

Historically, key adherents who have held variations on the theme of Moral Influence have included F. Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith, T & T Clark: London, 1999; H. Bushnell, The Vicarious Sacrifice:

127

deny the charge of divine violence liberals have long turned to this doctrine to uphold the view of a non-violent God who would otherwise be associated with violence.575

Abelard (1079-1142) is usually portrayed as the originator of MIT and is certainly its most influential purveyor; MIT’s ideals had, however, been extant before his version with the early Fathers highlighting issues that would later come to be associated with the model.576 As with other theories, key theologians and movements are associated, but each experiences a

genesis, growth, evolution and adaptation to reach its modern manifestation.

Given Abelard’s influence on MIT it is important to consider ideas that framed his thinking. He had thought it ‘cruel and wicked’, for instance, that the blood of an innocent person should be demanded as the price for anything. He also considered it abhorrent that an innocent man should be slain at all; much less that God would demand this to reconcile the world to Himself.577 These sentiments are foundational to Abelard’s view of God’s character and the means of accomplishing the divine will.

Abelard concluded that,

...our redemption through the suffering of Christ is that deeper love within us which not only frees us from slavery to sin, but also secures for us the true liberty of the children of God, in order that we might do all things out of love rather than out of fear – love for him who has shown us such grace that no greater can be found.578

The means by which he interpreted and understood the centrality of God’s love served as a locus to which all other propositions were subsidiary.579

This pervasive echo of love resonates throughout his doctrinal reflections and for Abelard the central atonement issue was not how to change an offended God’s mind toward the sinner,

Christian Doctrine of Justification and Reconciliation: The Positive Development of the Doctrine, Wipf and

Stock: Eugene, 2004 and H. Rashdall, The Idea of the Atonement in Christian Theology, McMillan and Co: Basingstoke, 2010.

575

“Beginning with Schleiermacher… there was a renewed interest in an Abelardian-type approach that continued throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries among many.” Green & Baker, Recovering, 142.

576

Boersma, Violence, 116.

577

Ray, Deceiving, 13.

578

P. Abelard, ‘Peter Abelard on the Love of Christ in Redemption’, A. McGrath (ed.), The Christian Theology

Reader, Oxford, Blackwell, 1996, 184.

579

Ray sums up Abelard’s position, noting that for him, “The event of atonement, then, is an event of creative love: God created the universe out of love; God becomes incarnate in Jesus out of love; and in and through the incarnation, God elicits from human beings a responsive love.” Ray, Deceiving, 14.

128

but how sinful humankind could be brought to see that the God they perceived as harsh and judgmental, was in fact loving.580

One of the central themes of MIT is the atonement as living metaphor, demonstrating God’s intent and actions as an aspirational model for humans; there are, of course, multifarious biblical instances to support this. For instance, God exhorts Israel, the Church or individual believers to either imitate the divine or Jesus Christ. To illustrate this claim, in the Old Testament the people of Israel are addressed corporately on God’s instruction through Moses and encouraged to emulate God and his functions. Moses is told, “Speak to the entire

assembly of Israel and say to them: “Be holy because I, the LORD your God, am holy””, Leviticus 19:2.

In the New Testament Paul speculates on the role of the Church in God’s purposes and sees it as not merely an instrument of God, but an extension of God’s reality, not only to those on earth, but cosmologically. Paul also eulogises that, “His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms”. Ephesians 3:10. Finally, Jesus exhorts individual believers to have the highest aspirations in terms of outlook, behaviour and purposes; he encourages individuals to, “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” Matthew 5:48. In all cases,

corporate and individual, emulation and expression of God, His character and purposes is paramount.

God thereby serves as ‘exemplar’ for imitation, to be copied and aspired to in terms of thoughts, outlook and behaviour. From an exemplarist perspective, whatever else the story of Jesus expresses it represents a supreme pattern to follow (Heb.12.2) and the one example of a genuine human life in the midst of a fallen world.581

MIT places a new soteriological emphasis of responsibility with humans, making it possible to conclude that,

...for Abelard, Jesus died as the demonstration of God’s love. And the change that results from that loving death is not in God but in the subjective consciousness of the sinners, who repent and cease their rebellion against God and turn towards God. It is this psychological or subjective influence worked on the mind of the

580

Weaver, Nonviolent, 18.

581

129

sinner by the death of Christ that gives this view its name of moral influence theory.582

A theological paradigm shift in emphasis of this kind will, of course, elicit those who welcome it and those who oppose it. Some question the emphasis accorded to humans and consider its subjective and anthropo-centric pole to be a weakness.583 Others, like Boersma, believe it represents God taking human response seriously, not coercing believers, but using genuine persuasion to draw them to Himself.584 Certainly MIT presents new-found

soteriological responsibility for humans in that whilst the divine expression of love is utterly God-initiated, nonetheless huge onus is put upon humans who will be held accountable for whether they rightly respond to Christ-as-exemplar.

Rather than worshipping a distant, judgemental and potentially violent God humans find themselves, according to MIT, at the heart of divine soteriological purposes, deciding whether to emulate God or not. They either bear the consequences or reap the rewards of their actions and choices rather than remaining dependent upon a potentially wrathful and unpredictable God. This soteriology has been seen as both admirably simple and ethically appealing, replacing the disconcerting notion of divine violence evident in other theories with a God ready and willing to receive those who choose to approach Him.585

Conversely, it is argued that MIT fails to take full measure of the power and influence of evil and sin. Sin should be understood as a slavery which cannot be overcome by mere appeals to follow a good example. Instead, the requirement is for a tangible act of setting free, of re- creation, indeed, of a redemption which fully respects the humanity of its object.586An appeal to follow an example, however seminal and inspirational, is unable to change the ontological status of individuals ensnared by the Satan, the demonic realm and sin.587 Whilst it is biblical to set God and others as exemplars, a successful imitation can only occur after atonement has been made, the Satan defeated and with the nullifying of Satanic power and the attendant overcoming of sin.

582

Weaver, Nonviolent, 18.

583

Schmiechen, however, notes that the love of God as demonstrated in the death and resurrection of Jesus and as understood and presented by Abelard is an objective event; concluding that, “The theory is not completely reduced to the subjective response of humanity.” Schmiechen, Saving, 294.

584 Boersma, Violence, 132. 585 Rauser, Faith, 105. 586 Gunton, Actuality, 160. 587

“One of the objections to “moral imitation” as a basis for atonement is that it offers no necessary purchase on the world; it refers to no ontological change brought by Christ that achieves its goal regardless of human response.” Bartlett, Cross, 15.

130

Abelard disliked the emphasis on God’s judgment required in the satisfaction theory; he also objected that God’s attitude is understood to change in regard to the person who accepted Jesus’ death on their behalf. Such teaching was impossible for him because the perfect God is entirely impassible.588 The responsibility for change within MIT therefore shifted from God, whether impassible or not, to human beings who have high degrees of passibility and either a desire or a need for change.

Abelard’s atonement theory is primarily epistemological, presenting humans with a message of God’s love and the weight of their sin; it is also volitional, offering motivation for humans to make a positive response.589 MIT is therefore principally concerned with human function rather than divine or cosmological ontology. The human seeking salvation through Jesus Christ is encouraged to see the cross as a supreme visual aid and stimulus for moral and praxiological change. This moves the emphasis away from the Satan, sin and any encounters that might occur between God and malevolent forces, thereby removing any accompanying need for divine violence. What is required is that a lesson be learnt and an example applied to the individual in a subjective manner such that their response lifts them out of sin and into right relationship with God through their choice and endeavour.590 Scant regard is given to the Satan or evil forces actually existing, other than in a metaphorical or symbolic manner. MIT presents a way by which God can be absolved from the charge of violence, ontologically and functionally. Boersma notes, however, that, “A moral theory of the atonement only truly avoids the problem of divine violence if it focuses entirely on the life of Christ, so that there is no way in which God uses the death of Christ as a redemptive event.”591 This particularity and focus on one soteriological element at the expense of others to explain or deny the charge of divine violence belies an inherent weakness of MIT.

Another problem emerges in the stark disparity between Jesus as exemplar and humans as imitators in that Jesus is an example because he alone is the incarnate Son who by the enabling of the Holy Spirit remained unfallen whereas humans universally fall.592 By

588 Weaver, Nonviolent, 18. 589 Rauser, Faith, 105. 590

This issue is further highlighted by Rauser when he compares the MIT to the CVM and PSA theories. He notes that, “While these other theories are objective (that is, they see the primary force of the atonement in the objective work achieved by God in Christ), the example/influence theory is subjective insofar as it sees the primary work of the atonement in the effect it has upon individuals (revealing the love of God to us) and the response it invokes in them (motivating us to be like Christ).” Rauser, Faith, 104.

591

Boersma, Violence, 117.

592

131

analogy, this is like a great athlete being an example to a small, physically-challenged child. The athlete could inspire the child to achieve its best in response to her example and

exhortations and yet, by definition, because of his inherent limitations, the child would ultimately be unable to attain all that the role-model requires. This scenario provides the definition of an exercise in futility and frustration – both for model and imitator.