Schleiermacher on the Atonement

Influenced by the philosophy of Aristotle and Immanuel Kant, Schleiermacher was ordained in the German Reformed Church in 1794. He defined religion as the “feeling of absolute dependence”, Christianity being the highest although not the only true religion. His thoughts on the atonement of Christ are found in The Christian Faith, p. 100-105.

Schleiermacher reacted against the rationalism of the Enlightenment and argued that religion was a matter of the heart, not the head. He speaks of God as the object of our sense of god-consciousness, yet with almost no stress on his personal nature. Sin is spoken of as the struggle between man’s lower consciousness, the natural impulses belonging to this life of senses, and his god-consciousness.

Under this scheme, redemption becomes the liberation of our god-consciousness from its oppression by our lower consciousness. This is accomplished not by the substitutionary sacrifice of the God-man, but by Jesus the archetypal man. Jesus was the man who embodied this god-consciousness. He was not supernatural but his example transcends common humanity.
The Redeemer them is like all men in virtue of the identity of human nature, but distinguished from them all by the constant potency of his god-consciousness, which was a veritable existence of God in Him.

Though enormously influential, Schleiermacher’s view is biblically inadequate, not distinctively Christian and depends in fact on a kind of pantheism. Talk of forgiveness of sins is quite remote to Schleiermacher...

Barth on the atonement

Barth's extended discussion of "atonement" or "reconciliation" is all the more remarkable given the thoroughly liberal cast of his education. The central section in his Church Dogmatics IV.1 is entitled "The Judge Judged in Our Place". The entire section is imbued with the language of guilt, judgement and forgiveness. On the cross we see God exercising a rightful judgement on sinful humanity. The cross itself exposes human self-delusions: that human beings want to be their own judges.

For Barth, the cross of Christ represents the locus in which the righteous judge makes known his judgement of sinful humanity and simultaneously takes that judgement upon himself:

What took place is that the Son of God fulfilled the righteous judgement on us human beings by himself taking our place as a human being and in our place undergoing the judgement under which we had passed…Because God willed to execute his judgement on us in his Son, it all took place in his person, as his accusation and condemnation and destruction. He judged, and it was the judge who was judged, who allowed himself to be judged…Why did God become a human being? So that God as a human being might do and accomplish and achieve and complete all this for us wrongdoers, in order that in this way there might be brought about by him our reconciliation with him, and our conversion to him.

This is strongly substitutionary of course. God exercises his righteous judgement by exposing our sin, by taking it upon himself, and thus by neutralising its power.

Moltmann and the Atonement

Theodicy in one sense drives Moltmann's doctrine of the atonement. Our theology of the atonement (he says) should in some sense justify God if it is to have any relevance in a post-Auschwitz world:

To return today to the theology of the cross means avoiding one-sided presentations of it in its tradition, and comprehending the crucified Christ in the light and context of his resurrection, and therefore of freedom and hope.

To take up the theology of the cross today is to o beyond the limits of the doctrine of salvation and to inquire into the revolution needed in the concept of God. Who is God in the cross of Christ who is abandoned by God?

To take the theology of the cross further at the present day means to go beyond a concern for personal salvation and to inquire about the liberation of man and his new relationship to the reality of the demonic crisis in his society. Who is the true man in the sight of the Son of Man who was rejected and rose again in the freedom of God?

Finally to realise the theology of the cross at the present day is to take seriously the claims of Reformation theology to criticize and reform and to develop it beyond a criticism of the church into a criticism of society. What does it mean to recall the God who was crucified in a society whose official creed is optimism. and which is knee-deep in blood? (The Crucified God, p.4)

Moltmann argues that it is the cross which puts God right in the midst of suffering, indeed the atonement is primarily an event in the Trinitarian history of God. On the cross both the Father and the Son suffer (God is at enmity with God) in a way that brings solidarity with the oppressed and victims of suffering in our world. Moltmann's version of the atonement is powerful and strikingly relevant. You could almost call The Crucified God an evangelistic work. The cruci-centric emphasis of his work is admirable; and he takes seriously the Godward aspect of the atonement. Perhaps we could quibble that he neglects various NT emphases and is selective in his treatment of the texts (neglecting Romans 5, 2 Corinthians 5 and 1 John 2 for example). Further, we need to ask whether Moltmann has presented more an identification of God with suffering rather than an atonement per se. And yet Moltmann's presentation, despite these shortcomings, is a breathtaking account of the cross for our bloody times.

Christus Victor: the lie exposed

The victory on the cross was against a force whose primary tactic is that of the lie. Jesus submits to the lie – the old lie – and so exposes it to the truth. In the wilderness and in Gethsemane, he refuses the temptations of the Satan to follow an alternate path. He combats the lies of Satan with truth-telling. It is almost as if, on the cross, Jesus allows the lie an apparent victory, but by the manner of his dying, shows how corrupt it always was. He also exposes the untruth of the human conspiracy against him. Against his accusers, he is actually proved innocent.


Is this, properly speaking, a victory? I think it ought to be construed as such... Jesus himself speaks about binding up Satan (Mark 3). Satan is the primeval liar, the 'Father of lies'. To defeat him is to expose his lies to the truth - to unmask him. John 8 is a fascinating interchange in which Jesus links these themes, and also indicates that his cross ('when you have lifted up the son of Man') will be the moment of his vindication and triumph.

One of the points I have been trying to make (in Doc 2) is that the use of these metaphors for the atonement radically changes our whole perspective on the original terms. If 'this is victory' as the song says, then it says a lot about how God wins victories. Truth-telling is ultimately the way to defeat the chief of liars...

Stephen Holmes on Penal Substition

Some great stuff from The Wondrous Cross:

...we should not try to understand the cross of Christ through thinking about sacrifice, or love, or anything else in the world; rather, we should understand sacrifice, and love, and every other human reality by thinking about the cross of Christ. And if we take the view that only one of the stories of salvation is true, we end up denying this. (p. 78)

It seems to me that the key insight of any account of penal subsitution is precisely this: God takes the due punishment on himself...We cannot tell stories about an angry God and a loving saviour without being false to the Scripture and the gospel. The story that must be told is that punishment is due, and that the holy loving God takes it upon himself. (p. 95)

In being born as one of us, in baptism in the Jordan, in being made sin for us, God the Son identifies with us, so much so that, without injustice, he may bear our guilt and we may enjoy his blessedness. It is a marvellous exchange, which we cannot explain fully, but which we can begin to glimpse the possibility of. (p. 98)

JI Packer on the atonement

Packer's classic 1973 essay 'What did the cross achieve?' is a terrific corrective to what he calls 'rationalistic' versions of atonement theology of both conservative and non-conservative types. Some of the most interesting stuff comes at the beginning of the essay when he puts out some methodological insights...

Thus:

Here as elsewhere methodological rationalism became in the seventeenth century a worm in the Reformed bud, leading in the next two centuries to a large-scale withering of its theological flower. p. 5

Packer asks 'what sort of knowledge of God's actuon in Christ's death may we have?' (p. 6)

The answer.. is faith-knowledge: by faith we know that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself. Yes, indeed, but what sort of knowledge is faith-knowledge? It is a kind of knowledge of which God is both giver and content. It is a Spirit-given acquaintance with divine realities, given through acquaintance with God's word. ....it is a unique kind of knowledge which, though real, is not full; it is knowledge of what is discernible within a circle of light against the background of a larger darkness; it is, in short, knowledge of a mystery, the mystery of the living God at work.

the theological significance of the life of Jesus Christ

Given the fact of the incarnation, what is the theological significance of the life of Jesus Christ? Is his life merely a prelude to his passion?

“How can anyone say that the rest of Jesus’ life is not substantially for our redemption? In that case what would be its significance? A mere superfluous narrative?" (K.Barth Dogmatics in Outline p.101)

“It is curious that evangelicals often link the substitutionary act of Christ only with his death, and not with his incarnate person and life – that is dynamite for them! They thereby undermine the radical nature of substitution, what the New Testament calls katallage, Christ in our place and Christ for us in every respect. (T.F.Torrance Preaching Christ Today: The Gospel and Scientific Thinking p.30)

“We affirm that Christ’s saving work included both his life and his death o our behalf. We declare that faith in the perfect obedience of Christ by which he fulfilled all the demands of the Law of God on our behalf is essential to the Gospel. We deny that out salvation was achieved merely or exclusively by the death of Christ without reference to his life of perfect righteousness.” (The Committee for Evangelical Unity in the Gospel incl. Packer, Carson, Sproul, Woodbridge, Christianity Today 43, 1999)

The Wondrous Cross

Over the weekend I read Stephen R. Holmes book The Wondrous Cross.

I think it is a very sensible and clear book. It is brief (much briefer than Pierced for our Transgressions!), and written for a wide audience.

Holmes offers a stout defence of Penal Substitutionary Atonement but does so without overplaying his hand or becoming shrill. He doesn't overstate the scriptural case, for example. One of the things he notes is how the Bible rarely gives us an explanation of how the atonement works. Neither does he overstate the presence of PSA in the tradition: he can only find one clear reference, in Gregory the Great. It is with Calvin that the doctrine comes to full flower.

Furthermore, Holmes does think the doctrine has a contemporary relevance. One of the annoying things (for me) about contemporary missiological works is how the declare with such absoluteness and authority what everyone in contemporary culture does or doesn't think. Holmes seeks a more subtle account, and suggests that PSA may yet have a great deal of resonance with the culture of the West.

One strength of the book for me was that Holmes seeks an account of the atonement which recognises all the different 'stories' of the atonement that we find in Scripture and does not play one off against the other. The tendency for evangelicals who want to defend PSA is to make it the only or the absolutely determinative model of the atonement: something that is certainly hard to justify from Scripture. As Holmes shows, even Calvin would have no truck with this.

There's more to say. These are just a few jottings rather than a review: suffice it to say that I think it is a book that should be more widely read than it is.

The living out scripture meme

Jason and Byron tagged me with this meme begun originally by Andy Goodliff. I haven't done them before because I get confused doing all those links... but this is a good one.

The brief is to post "that verse or story of scripture which is important to you, which you find yourself re-visiting time after time".

For me: Colossians 1:15-20:

15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

I guess I just didn't realise how big the work of God in Christ was until I 'discovered' this passage. It's the scope that gets me: not only is Christ the supreme means and end of the whole creation in all its material and immaterial aspects, he is also its final destiny. Even death is not insurmountable, though of course the passage points to Christ's death as the point of peace and reconciliation between all things and himself. The atonement is a universal reconciliation of all things in Christ, to Christ.

The song that comes to mind? Radiohead's Everything in its Right Place. I am sure they didn't mean it to be a Psalm, but it is.

[PS: I notice that in Pierced for our Transgressions the authors make nary a mention of this key passage. Shame.]

Augustine and the atonement

This little passage from the City of God very helpfully clarifies something I was trying to say a week or so ago: that Jesus is not punished by God on the cross, though he pays the penalty for sin:

...the good and true Mediator has shown that it is sin which is evil, not the substance or nature of flesh, since that substance could be assumed, with a human soul, and preserved free from sin, and could be laid aside in death, and changed into something better by resurrection. He has shown that death itself, although it is the punishment for sin (a punishment which he paid for us, though being himself without sin), is not to be aovided by sinning but rather, if occasion offers, to be endured for the cause of right. For it is just because he died, and his death was not the penalty of sin, that he was able by dying to pay the price of our sins. X.24

And, to boot, a more positive role for the body than Augustine is often given credit for.

Vanhoozer and the atonement, more of.

[For your greater edification and entertainment, a photo of me graduating with the Master of Studies (Research) degree from Oxford, a degree I didn't even know I was enrolled for or intend to achieve! But they let you wear a fancy gown, so - what the hey!]

I have been enjoying re-reading some of the essays in The Glory of the Atonement (ed. Hill and James). The survey of the biblical and historical material is thorough and careful and leaves me in no doubt that, if one wants to excise sacrificial language from the atonement (see below) or remove the substitutionary aspect, one does so against the overwhelming testimony of the scriptures and the tradition. Which is not to say that there isn't a subjective side to the atonement: it is just that if one has only the subjective side, it ain't enough.

Anyhow, Vanhoozer's essay is my favourite so far ("The Atonement in Postmodernity") - partly because it serves as a handbrake on some of the other essays. He goes so far as to accept the postmodern critique of theoria, at least up to a point. He writes:

The postmodern challenge requires us to develop a nonreductive doctrine of the atonement that perceives the saving significance of Jesus' death in terms other than this-worldly economies of exchange...

What the doctrine of the atonement attempts haltingly to articulate is the equal ultimacy of God's love and God's light (justice, holiness). On the cross neither mercy nor justice loses out; the cross is rather their mutual fulfillment. It is precisely for this reason that theories of the atonement must resist explanations that reduce the significance of Jesus ' death either to unconditional mercy or to uncompromising justice.

George Pattison on Girard and the atonement...

George Pattison in his book A Short Course in Christian Doctrine adapts Girard's work to Christian thinking about the atonement thus:

Earlier, I looked briefly at René Girard’s theory of sacrifice. …Scapegoating works in the sense that it unifies society (“One man must die for the people”!), but it works only at the cost of a massive collective self-deception, a refusal of the self-knowledge that we are each complicit in and responsible for the violence that the act of scapegoating seeks to purge. Seeing Jesus as the scapegoat who bears our sins and thus takes away the sin of the world is, according to Girard, completely to miss the point of what we actually find in the Gospels. For what we see there is the historically unique witness to the profound injustice of the scapegoat phenomenon and, for the first time in history, a victim who refuses to accept the justice of his death, who, in effect, proclaims that one man should not die for the people. For if each person is, in themselves, a reflection of the image and likeness of God and called to fellowship in the divine life, then no act of killing can be “God’s will”. [Thus the passion narrative] offers a decisive insight into the systemic, structural injustice of the human condition and, through this self-knowledge, demystifies and frees us from the otherwise universal mechanisms of mimetic desire and their inevitable violent outcome. The cross, as witnessed in the Gospels, does set us free. But it does not do so because it is the supreme sacrifice. Rather, it does so because it exposes sacrifice for what it is: murder. If we understand this, then that path is for evermore closed and we are set on the new path of mutual responsibility and care. Where the Church persists in interpreting the death of Jesus in sacrificial terms, however, we may suspect that the lesson has not yet been learned. It is salutary to reflect that the Victorians’ preoccupation with sacrifice and atonement provided an all too easy context for the mystification of what happened in the First World War as a Christ-like sacrifice. Only too late did Europe realize that this was…just plain slaughter.

My question is: has there ever been a time when the church did not interpret the death of Jesus in sacrificial terms - let alone in the explicit and persistent language of the NT itself? The language of 'as witnessed in the Gospels' can only be true on a very bad reading of them. Can we retain some of the insight about the cross - that it puts an end to sacrifice and exposes the death of Jesus as a vile murder of an innocent man - and yet still say as orthodox Christians always have, that it was a sacrifice, supremely so?

Calvin on the Extent of the Atonement

My study-room mate here at Wycliffe Hall Russ Dawn has written an interesting paper comparing and contrasting Calvin and his successor Theodore Beza on a number of issues including the extent of the atonement. On the one side, R.T. Kendall claims that Calvin did not teach limited atonement, whereas Beza did. Richard Muller replies that Calvin upheld the Lombardian distinction between the sufficiency of Christ's work for all sin, and the efficiency of that work only for the elect. Russ writes:

It is not patent, however, that Muller has resolved all the difficulties. Kendall, for instance, recognises that in Calvin's thought, although Christ died for all, he only intercedes for the elect, but he interprets this as meaning that for Calvin the decree of election 'is not rendered effectual in Christ's death but in His ascension and intercession at the Father's right hand'...In the final analysis, the best reading is that Beza and Calvin differed on the extent of the atonement. Beza clearly espoused limited atonement, whereas Calvin could clearly express universal atonement, or less clearly express limited atonement. It would be a selective, possibily tendentious reading of Calvin to place him squarely in the camp of the doctrine of limited atonement.

Kendall himself says:

Fundamental to the doctrine of faith in John Calvin is his belief that Christ died indiscriminately for all men. Equally crucial however is his conviction that, until faith is given, 'all that He has suffered and done for the salvation of the human race remains useless and of no value for us.'

This might be somewhat overstating the case: Calvin doesn't clear up this issue because it wasn't a question he was particularly conscious of. However, what IS interesting in Calvin is that (as with the sacraments) faith, which is itself a gift of God by the Holy Spirit, is needed in order to effect salvation.

Pierced for our transgressions

In response to some very silly books attacking Penal Substitutionary Atonement, including those by Steve Chalke and Joel Green, the Oak Hill trio of Mike Ovey, Andrew Sach and Steve Jeffrey have produced a book I am looking forward very much to reading: Pierced for our Transgressions - Rediscovering the Glory of Penal Substitutionary Atonement.

The table of contents looks fascinating: they give exhaustive answer to the many objections raised against PSA. Their account of the heritage of the doctrine is very interesting: the attacks on it have tried to relativise it by making it a product of particular medieval or renaissance conditions. (I would also say that particular conditions of modernity and the way in which we deal with criminality in our culture - ironically because of our Christian heritage - have lead to the doctrine being seen as distasteful and immoral: Foucault's Discipline and Punish is fascinating as an account for the genealogy of punishment in Western liberal society.)

However: there is a tendency in evangelicalism to make the doctrine under attack loom larger than it ought, or to make it the sine qua non of the preaching of the gospel. (PSA is not the gospel, though it is (I believe) a glorious doctrine explaining how exactly the gospel is good news.) This leads in practice to a trotting out of PSA formulae at every point, even when it isn't warranted by the text.
As
K.J. Vanhoozer writes (and his evangelical credentials are sound!):

the economy of covenantal grace is not exhausted by the logic of penal substitution even though the latter has a legitimate place.

I blame you and I forgive you

'To forgive is to blame, not to punish'.

I don't know if Byron has already commented on this thought from Volf's book Free of Charge, but it struck me afresh this morning. Forgiveness is actually an act of judgement rather than a lack of judgement.

As Volf goes on, he sees judicial punishment as now shorn of its retributive force (this sounds like Girard) because Christ is the end of retribution. He heralds a new way of blaming: forgiveness, which may of course be coupled with discipline and so one, but not retribution.

As Volf goes on:

Standing as I do in the tradition of Martin Luther, I think Christ took all the punishment upon himself. None of it can be justly doled out to anyone anymore. Expiation on the part of an offender replaces forgiveness and removes the reason for it. It cannot supplement forgiveness. The heart of forgiveness is relinquinshing retribution... . p. 171

A tension in evangelicalism...

A moment of clarity for me:

In evangelicalism, is the authority of the Bible absolute? Or is it the authority of the evangelical theological system?

In debates about the New Perspective and other issues, the notion of a 'classic evangelical' position is bandied about as a bit of a trump card: if not the joker in the pack, than certainly an ace up the sleeve. But at the same time, the authority of the Word in operation should theoretically at least mean that (within orthodoxy) for true evangelicals doctrine is revisable... which is to say, the theological system is revisable as the Bible is read more skilfully and more carefully.

In Sydney, Knox and Robinson were great models of the kind of true evangelical priority of the Bible. That is, they produced an ecclesiology which was in many respects a readjustment and reinterpretation of previous ones, because of their commitment to the authority of the Bible above all else. It left them exposed to the charge of an 'un-Anglican' ecclesiology. Today we do this with lay presidency: the argument is, sacerdoctal presidency isn't biblical. We don't care whether it is traditional or not.

Knox was quite an original thinker, and he was free to be, because he didn't hold to a rigid set of handed-down doctrines. That is why Moore sets a little at odds to our fellow evangelicals in other parts of the world: because we don't in general hold to a system of theology (like 5-point Calvinism) just because it might be logical or traditional: limited atonement isn't biblical (and you know, it just isn't!), so we ditch it. Our best current preachers and thinkers do this too: Peter Bolt and John Woodhouse are great examples of guys who have followed in the Knox-Robinson footsteps (if I may take their names in vain).

Noticeably, however, we are happy to play fast and loose with Anglican traditions, but not with evangelical ones. Perhaps this is because the former tend to be liturgical matters as opposed to doctrinal ones...

3. Life - Jesus in his death made a sacrifice for sin that broke the devil's power over death

We have spoken of where Jesus was true, exposing the devil's lies; we have spoken about Jesus life and death of love, counteracting the devil's murderousness; but in one way we have thought about it backwards. It was by his death that Jesus struck the decisive blow against the devil, and so unravelled all his works.

As Paul once said, the sting of death is sin. What makes death so appalling, what gives the devil his power, is sin and its consequences. That is death's real horror. But on the cross the Son of God made of himself a sacrifice for the sins of the world; he made atonement for sin so that the devil had nothing left with which to accuse us. By his death, Jesus disarmed death, so that for the children of God death is a bomb that explodes with no charge.

The cross was the scene of Jesus' great triumph: for finally there a human person did what Adam failed to. Finally there, a human being - in his flesh and blood, with all the difficulty that would have meant - in obedience to God, met the devil with all the worst that he could do, and overcame him. It would be easy for us to see the cross as a defeat, and the resurrection as the overturning of that defeat; but that would be to miss the way the NT talks about the cross as itself a victory - as Paul does in Colossians 2, and as the author to the Hebrews does in the second chapter:

Hebrews 2:14 Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death-- that is, the devil-- 15 and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death.

That Jesus rose from the dead confirmed that he had in his death destroyed the devil and his works.

Kevin Vanhoozer 'The Drama of Doctrine'

This book represents a landmark in genuinely reformed evangelical thinking about the theological task.

Kevin J. Vanhoozer, who is currently Research Professor of Systematic Theology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, is well known for his work on questions of fundamental theology (First Theology) and hermeneutics (Is There A Meaning in This Text?). As usual, in The Drama of Doctrine he manages to combine real creativity and a remarkable knowledge of contemporary debates with faithfulness to conservative evangelical orthodoxy – which ultimately of course means faithfulness to the scriptures themselves.

This work is occasioned by the calcification of contemporary evangelical theology and the unwillingness of church pastors to pay any attention to it at all out of suspicion and/or boredom. In answer to serious cultural, intellectual and theological challenges, evangelical theological voices have certainly been more loudly raised; but they have not been persuasive in the debate or attuned to the pastor’s weekly task of proclaiming the gospel to contemporary people. Evangelical scholars have either retreated further into fortress of Enlightenment rationalism (Carl Henry, Wayne Grudem) or given craven concession to postmodernism (Stanley Grenz). The situation into which The Drama of Doctrine is written calls for a reinvigoration of the theological task in a way which avoids both of these dire pitfalls.

The purpose of this work is to present Vanhoozer’s vision of a ‘canonical-linguistic’ theology organized around the metaphor of dramatic performance. Doctrine is not merely a set of flat propositions, but rather a dramatic direction to be performed by Christians, individually and collectively. That is to say, it is a gospel to be lived! The exposition of his theme falls into four parts. In the first, “The Drama”, Vanhoozer shows how theology responds and corresponds to the words and deeds of God and serves as ‘direction for the church’s fitting participation in the drama of redemption’ (p. 31). It is rooted in the gospel itself as its first premise. Second (“The Script”), Vanhoozer addresses the place of Scripture and tradition and how they should relate. Against the post-liberals who make scripture merely subject to the church, he wishes to affirm sola scriptura. However, he is receptive to the insight that these doctrines of scripture do describe and prescribe ecclesial practices of scriptural reading. This is the real strength of the book, in this reviewer’s opinion: Vanhoozer has offered a way forward from the intractable battles about the doctrine of scripture without conceding its constitutive and authoritative place for the church’s life. Here is at last an evangelical doctrine of scripture which does not ignore ecclesiology. With John Webster, Vanhoozer also argues that Scripture has less an epistemological than a soteriological function.

Part III (“The Dramaturge”) fleshes out the role of the theologian in the ‘canonical-linguistic’ approach to theology following the theatrical model. Vanhoozer coins the term ‘post-conservative’, a move which nods to the emphasis on communal practices in post-liberalism and yet preserves an authoritative canonical script. The theologian engages in both practices of scientia in interpreting scripture and sapientia in reading and engaging with the contemporary cultural context. The aim of the theology is to enable Christians to better ‘perform’ the Christian life as disciples of Jesus by ‘improvising’ on the script(ures). Vanhoozer here proposes a move beyond both propositionalism and foundationalism in theological method while affirming the place of propositions and foundations as necessary to theology.

The fourth part (“The Performance”) extrapolates the task of theology in its congregational and pastoral setting, using the doctrine of the atonement as a case study. Doctrine is something that we are invited to live out in the church and the world: “The direction of doctrine…enables us…to render the gospel public by leading lives in creative imitation of Christ” (p. 32). One of Vanhoozer’s favourite themes – martyrdom – here emerges as a disturbing sign to the church of what imitating Christ might mean. It is a rare piece of systematic theology that can address the Christian walk so concretely. Under this schema, and with his ears attuned to postmodern currents, he is able to emphasise the need for action without losing the theological reason for it. Doctrine and ethics flow seamlessly together - as of course they should.

Some features of the book serve to dampen my overall enthusiasm. First: the guiding metaphor of ‘drama’ is a well chosen development on the insights of narrative theology; but it does at points feel stretched further than it will go. In particular, the pastor as ‘director’ (Part IV) feels like a poorly chosen equivalence and smacks somewhat of clericalism. Surely it is the Spirit who directs the church. Second, Vanhoozer’s incessant quotation of other authors impedes the smooth flow of his text; and at times appears forced. He seeks congruity in quotes but not in arguments; but when he quotes someone – say, Geoffrey Wainwright on the role of the sacraments (p. 412) - who is diametrically opposed to his conclusions, it is less than convincing as an appeal to authority. Third, Vanhoozer tends to state rather than argue his case. He articulates his point with great clarity and even aesthetic flair. This is a deliberate and self-consciouslessly postmodern strategy of depending on the explanatory power of the ideas themselves to convince his readers rather than leaning on some evidence external to the subject matter. With that I have much sympathy: however, this reader felt that there may have been more for Vanhoozer to offer by way of argument. I am surprised he spends so little time, for example, on showing how the scriptures themselves demonstrate his case by presenting a word that demands performance from its readers.

However, these shortcomings should not deter potential readers. This is a courageous and timely book that exemplifies theology taking mission seriously; and should be read by pastors, students and teachers who are like-minded. Vanhoozer does not ignore or side-step the toughest questions of postmodernism. Most salutary is the call of this book for the churches to renew our communal practices. Vanhoozer shows what an evangelical theologian can achieve if he or she is truly attentive to the task of serving the church. His vision is to recapture the reformed vision of deep theological reflection as belonging to pastors and lay people, not the preserve of the academy. Here is no brittle orthodoxy; rather, we have in The Drama of Doctrine an imaginative reiteration of evangelical truth.

some themes in theology...

Being away from home is a good time for self-reflection. So: what would I like to see in a Sydney Evangelical Anglican theology? What themes (and how) have emerged (for me at least) as important and perhaps distinctive - what are the great benefits of theology the way I have learnt it from Moore and Sydney? What themes might appear as correctives to our tradition? Here is a short list:

0 - something about the Trinity. David H. will help me here!

1 - A high view of scripture's authority but coupled with a robust and flexible doctrine of scripture. What this means is not an abstractly drawn doctrine of scripture, but rather a commitment to prioritise the content of scripture. A plain reading of scripture, but not a literalistic or wooden one... Biblical Theology has taught us that the big picture, the grand narrative sweep of the bible is where the action is. (This is why inerrancy is not at all emphasised even by those who would hold it.).

2 - 'the gospel of Christ' as a prominent theme and not just 'Christ' abstracted from the message about him.

3 - the huge importance of eschatology: not pre-mill or post-mill or any of that guff, but as a biblical/theological theme conditioning all the others, and helping us not to fall into speculations or abstractions. (we are not much interested in 'decrees', or causes, or any of that palaver...).

4. A very positive and full doctrine of creation (and new creation) - which leads to a commitment to the world. The resurrection as a sign of this.

5. Sin and evil are radical both individually and globally and so:

6. GRACE (via the cross) is an absolute... it is the start and end of the Christian life - the great reformation cry of justification by faith alone!

7. Yes, penal substitutionary atonement, but as conditioned by the Trinity, and as seen in the context of the other descriptions of the atonement in the scriptures and certainly with an emphasis on the willing obedience of the Son turning aside God's wrath.

8. the priority of the local church as 'the church' as opposed to the denominations. But at the same time a commitment to 'the church/es' in the whole world... no particular church polity has precedence: in fact overemphasis on particular church polities is usually silly.

9. Sacraments are effectual signs! And we ought to dig them! but they are enacted words, so ordered to the Word of God.

10. Oh yeah, God is sovereign, but LOVE is his supreme 'attribute' conditioning all the others. This is actually point 0 I think!



It's a draft. It's a beginning. We could say more....


Please feel free as a non Syd Ev. Anglican to comment!

Amyraldian ... and proud!

You can check out some debate over on Mandy Curley's site. Amyraldian by the way is a term used to label those Calvinists who do not hold to Limited, or particular atonement - the teaching that Christ only died for some (the elect) and not for the whole world.

We could also ask about why this debate matters so much? That would be a really great question to ask to people of both sides.

For me, it goes to the nature of God and to a very significant hermeneutical issue: do we assume that behind the God we meet in scripture is another more logical God? And, do we let the narrative of Scripture govern our theology or is our theological system the determiner of scripture? (BTW I am immune to the insult 'Barthian'!). It is worth noting that many of the texts that LA proponents offer as evidence do not overtly teach it to the exclusion of the non-LA position. Carson in his Love of God book is quite excellent on this. I have a couple of theological (rather than exegetical) points to add for consideration:
1 - i haven't seen anyone deal with my contention that LA is the result of starting the theological system with an abstract doctrine of God conditioned by the philosophy of Aristotle rather than with the drama of salvation-history and especially Christ. You can see this tendency in Owen and others however biblically committed they thought they were. Owen uses Aristotelian language and categories which then govern his whole theological system.
2 - a conceptual difficulty also arises because the atonement is conceived of as being an amount of 'stuff' that you can limit, like liquid in a bottle.
3 - the syllogism on which in depends (something like 'what God wills, sin cannot deny') is perhaps the problem. There is a hermeneutical problem here, isn't there, because the nature of God has already been decided...
4 - it is worth asking how the doctrine of creation - and God's love for all that he has made - fits in.
5. The relation of election in the whole biblical narrative to God's plan for the whole world needs to be accounted for. God's particular election has the whole cosmos in view, even when you think of Abraham and Israel...
6. LA (I would argue) is not Christocentric enough: since the full revelation of God's wrath and his love in his Son, the whole world is now judged according to this standard... The rejection of God's offer of redemption really is inexcuseable. But if LA holds of course it isn't a real offer anyway...
7. I am always suspicious of theology falling into too neat a 'system.' This is not an anti-rationalism: rather it suggests that theology has become beholden to some other system of rationality other than its own...

Of course there is more to say, and more lucidly.