IN WHICH: We explore Moral Influence
It's been a busy couple months for my family and I - I had hoped to write some more posts exploring the models of atonement, but between traveling to New York to visit family and then taking time at Covenant Point to participate with our local church camp, things got away from me. My goal is to make some time in the next several weeks now to continue this exploration more fully!
In the first entry we started by exploring what atonement is, and then went in-depth with the most common model that we see in both Catholic and Protestant churches: Satisfaction/Penal Atonement. We see how the Satisfaction model stacks up, both its pros and its cons, and we see that it is still the most commonly-known and used model of atonement in our culture today. But if this model isn't... pardon the pun... satisfactory, then what other models have been proposed, and how do they look, instead?
As we noted earlier, Anselm kicked much of this debate off because he was unhappy with the model that had been predominant in the early church up to his time - let's take a look at that model now and see what it might reveal to us. Was there a real need for Anselm to develop this alternative model? Would we be better off to go back to the ways of the original church founders and to understand their model of atonement? Or was Anselm right in seeking further satisfaction through his own model?
The Moral Influence Theory of Atonement
Everybody get your card binders out - it's time to add another saint to our collection!
Augustine is the patron saint of theologians (and brewers!), and one of the earliest voices to spend a great deal of time writing and advocating for the Moral Influence theory of atonement. Though some accredit the origins of this theory to the medieval theologian Peter Abelard, Abelard's work was a restatement of work that Augustine had already written, which was itself a work of writing down and articulating the church's teaching on atonement at the time.
The Moral Influence theory is perhaps the oldest theory of atonement in Christian theological history, with evidence for its teaching being found in Christian writings as early as the second century. In its simplest terms, this theory states that the ministry and aim of Jesus Christ in his incarnation, ministry, life, death, and resurrection was that of bringing about a positive moral change to humanity. In other words, Jesus sought to transform the world through his own example, to inspire others to do the same, and to therefore bring salvation to humanity through its own reformation. In this model, Jesus' death is seen as an act of martyrdom - this act, combined with the resurrection, is such a powerful model of faithfulness and perfect moral behavior that it serves as an inspiration for each and every one of us to be wiling to go and do likewise.
This is a model of atonement theory that has a number of factors at work in its favor - one of the biggest factors being, of course, its longstanding history in the tradition and teaching of the church. As I mentioned earlier, Augustine of Hippo wrote on this theory somewhere around the late 4th/early 5th century. Before Augustine, other Christian writings dating as far back as the second century seem to almost expressly teach this model of atonement. To this day, in fact, the Moral Influence theory remains a significant part of Eastern Orthodox doctrine, particularly in the theological goal of theosis, or "divinization," by which a Christian is able to grow more and more in God's likeness through the salvific work of Christ. Because of Christ's incarnation and example, and because of his being both fully God and fully human in life, death, and resurrection, humanity is enabled to participate in God's own divine nature - more simply put, we are united to God in Christ. The Moral Influence theory is also a keystone for understanding Christ in most circles of Liberal theology - it fits a more progressive model of Christ that does not require so strong a dependence on the supernatural, while also still maintaining integrity to the teachings found in the Gospels.
So, then, how does it hold up in light of scripture, itself? My own Reformed tradition teaches that Scripture is supposed to be the gold standard by which all doctrine is weighed, so how does this Moral Influence theory measure up? Does it fit with the message of the Gospel in such a way that we could call it compatible, or was Anselm right in his assessment and desire to create a better working model? Let's explore some of the prominent themes of the Moral Influence theory and see how they are reflected in the Gospels, themselves:
1. Jesus as Teacher
One of the most common roles we see Jesus filling in the Gospels is that of the teacher. His disciples call him "Rabbi" or "Rabboni" (especially in John's gospel, but also particularly in Mark), which means "teacher." He goes from town to town, not just healing people and performing miracles, but teaching about the Kingdom of God as he goes. He frequently tells parables in order to teach a particular idea or concept about God, and in all but Mark's gospel, he devotes great amounts of time to giving sermons, discourses, and long teachings on moral behavior - the "Sermon on the Mount" of Matthew's gospel contains not only the famous Beatitudes, but also the passages of "It is said... but I say unto you..." teachings.
The majority of these teachings of Jesus have to do with morality, with how people of the Kingdom should act and what that Kingdom looks like in practice. Jesus devotes a great deal of his teachings to clarifying, correcting, and reforming the current Jewish practices of his day. He teaches that people are to be "the light of the world" (Matthew 5:14) and encourages people to "let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father in heaven." (Matt. 5:16) He criticizes many of the practices, not because he views the laws that they reflect as wrong, but because of the contents of the hearts of those who do them: people who do good deeds for the sake of receiving praise for themselves, people who pray loudly in public so that others can see their piety and admire them, etc.
Even the "Great Commission" of Matthew 28 carries out this same theme as Jesus tells the disciples to "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you." (Matt. 28:19-20a, emphasis mine)
Because so much of Jesus' ministry centers around teaching, and especially moral teaching, we can begin to see a good deal of support for the Moral Influence theory beginning to shape up already.
2. Jesus as Exemplar
Not only does Jesus teach his disciples to do and act in ways reflective of the Kingdom, but Jesus demonstrates those behaviors in his own actions and life. He goes toe-to-toe with Satan, facing temptation in the desert without succumbing, but relies on Scripture as his sustenance and defense over and over again. He reaches out to the lost, the unwanted, the disenfranchised members of his society and provides them healing, inclusion, and forgiveness. He follows the religious practices of his day, giving worship at the temple, attending the synagogues and participating in various religious ceremonies, most notably the Passover meal (which then becomes the basis of the Last Supper, which we celebrate today in the Christian church as Communion or Eucharist). He provides an example to each of us in his life that we are encouraged to emulate with all of our being. Paul writes to the church in Corinth that he is an "imitator of Christ" as he encourages them to imitate him (1 Corinthians 11:1). He encourages the Philippians to "Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death - even death on a cross." (Philippians 2:5-8) The author of the letter to the Hebrews writes that we should "run with perseverance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus the pioneer and perfecter of our faith, who for the sake of the joy that was set before him endured the cross" (Hebrews 12:1-2, emphasis mine).
Christ's life most certainly serves as a prime example of what true, Christian life should look like. By allowing ourselves to be transformed by Christ's life, death, and resurrection, we can be encouraged to imitate Christ in our own lives, as well.
3. Christ as Founder of the Church
We've already covered the Great Commission, in which Jesus instructs the disciples to go and make more disciples. And we may be familiar with the passage in which Jesus speaks to Peter and tells him "On this rock I will build my church" (Matt. 16:18), which the Roman Catholic church uses as the basis for Peter as the first Pope and the establishment of the Apostolic lineage by which Christ's authority given to the church has been passed down throughout the ages.
But where the idea of Christ as founder of the church really takes root for the Moral Influence theory is in the book of Acts, as we see the church truly begin and take shape. The disciples are gathered together and living out their lives as followers of Christ. They go out and do the same things Christ did: teaching, healing, proclaiming the coming of the Kingdom... and because of the transformation each of them receives in Christ (and through the power of the Spirit at Pentecost), they succeed in carrying out Christ's mission on earth and continuing it as the Church. Through the witness of these first faithful men and women who had followed Christ while he was alive, who had seen him give up his life on the cross, and had further encountered him after the resurrection, a whole new movement takes form and grows, whereby Christ's example and ministry are continued. Christ's influence in the early Christian movement is clear, and so we add one more element of support into our consideration.
4. Christ as Martyr
"No one has greater love than this, to lay down one's life for one's friends." (John 15:13) Jesus tells this to the disciples and emphasizes the greatness of self-sacrifice in order that others may have life. He speaks of his own sacrificial death throughout the Gospels - "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep." (John 10:11) "See, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be handed over to the chief priests and the scribes, and they will condemn him to death; then they will hand him over to the Gentiles; they will mock him, and spit upon him, and flog him, and kill him; and after three days he will rise again." (Mark 10:33-34).
In a method similar to the Satisfaction/Penal substitution models, Jesus' death is still a big deal. But unlike the Satisfaction model, Jesus' death is neither required nor is it objectively significant for atonement itself to happen. It is more the affective quality of Jesus' martyrdom, that act of such extreme, selfless, unconditional love for all of humanity, that serves to enact moral change in each of us through our being encountered by it. It is the act that causes us to ask "What wondrous love is this?" on Good Friday, to sing glad Alleluias and proclaim "You ask me how I know he lives, he lives within my heart!" on Easter Sunday, and to sing "They will know we are Christians by our Love" throughout the whole year.
Assessing the model: what works and what doesn't?
Now that we've laid out the basics of the model and a basis of support for its consideration, we're left to decide: does this model work? What are the benefits of such a model? What questions and/or issues does it raise that we still need to wrestle with?
One of the things that I actually appreciate about working on this series is that it is giving me a chance to revisit these models, to wrestle with them, and to evaluate them even as I'm writing them. Which is why I'll make a confession here: when I first set out to tackle the Moral Influence model, I was skeptical of it, and I still have reservations on the theory itself that I will address momentarily. But as I wrote on it and dug into its details, I've started to see that there are some definite, strong benefits to such a model of atonement. NOTE: in assessing this model, I'm attempting to do so on its own merits, but I also come at it from the lens of my own tradition and background, which comes primarily out of the Penal Substitution model, and so some of this assessment is purely a matter of comparing and contrasting these two models against each other.
First and foremost, Moral Influence has the benefit of re-orienting the very focus of atonement for us. In Satisfaction theory, God's love is tempered by God's justice and wrath. God wants to love us, but God can't ignore our sin or simply forgive it without undermining God's own righteousness. Moral Influence posits instead that God loves us, period. And it is the love of God demonstrated to us in Jesus Christ that is enough to utterly transform us through its teaching and example, thereby allowing us to be reunited to God through Christ's love. As Clement of Alexandria, one of the early church fathers, writes:
Moral Influence simplifies things for us, in that we don't have to work out as many of the why's, the how's, the wherefore's of Christ - Christ didn't necessarily need to die on the cross in this model, and certainly not for the purpose of satisfying some Draconian blood-lust on God's behalf; but because he loved us as much as he did, he nevertheless went willingly to give his life on our behalf. That willingness to die, not because it is what was required to appease a just God, but because of Jesus' depth of love for all humanity, is the greatest motivating and transforming factor that can possibly be at work in our own hearts and spirits. As Paul writes, "the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all, therefore all have died." (2 Corinthians 5:14 ESV)
And yet there are still some serious questions that this model raises for me, despite the many positive things I have now discovered and explored so far:
The centrality of Christ
We established that Moral Influence theory simplifies things for us - but does it simplify things too much? As we already saw in the Satisfaction theories, there are issues with seeing atonement as a kind of "transaction" or "balance-sheet," but if we move in the direction of Moral Influence, I have to pause and ask: do we throw the baby out with the bath-water?
A lot of this question boils down to a distinction between subjective and objective views of atonement. In most of the models for atonement that I will be exploring in this series, Jesus' life, death, resurrection and ascension create a very distinctive, objective change in the relationship between God and humanity, and that change happens primarily in God's relationship to us. In Satisfaction/Substitution models, that change is affected by the appeasement of God's wrath against injustice and sin through Jesus Christ's substitution/obedience on our behalf. Because of Christ, God literally views humanity differently because God views humanity through the lens of Christ. Whenever God looks at humanity, God doesn't see Mike, the guy who drinks too much on the weekend and sleeps away his hangover on Sunday mornings, or Becca, the girl who lies to her boss about the money missing from the cash register during closing shifts; God sees Jesus Christ, who tells them that he has redeemed Mike and Becca and made them acceptable. This is one of the beautiful concepts that lies underneath the idea of Satisfaction theories that is incredibly important. We are seen as objectively different in God's eyes because of Christ's intercession on our behalf.
If the effect of the entire incarnation of Christ, however, is only subjective - if Jesus only serves as a catalyst for moral change through his example - then our atonement to God is arguably no longer directly the work of Christ as much as it is a somewhat intentional side effect. In the Reformed tradition, it is the work of Christ that is absolutely central to Christian faith - not just the way we understand salvation, but the way we understand who we are as a result. Without Christ's work, humanity is entirely lost. Without Christ, we are enslaved to sin and death. Without Christ, we are helpless. Christ's act of atonement applies to each of us universally, regardless of whether we choose to acknowledge and accept this act or not. In other words, just as we are incapable of resisting sin, we are also thereby incapable of resisting Christ's grace extended to us.
The Moral Influence model doesn't emphasize this centrality of Christ in as strong a manner, however. If Christ's work only accomplished on a subjective level, then what is it that makes Jesus, the movement that he inspired, and the morals that it teaches unique from any other moral system? What is it, exactly, that Christ accomplishes?
The agency of Christ
On this same level - in fact, building off of this idea of the centrality of Christ - one of the other significant issues that gives me pause in considering the Moral Influence model is the very way by which atonement is enacted - as we start to question what it is that Christ accomplishes in this form of atonement, it brings about a significant realization: if Christ is nothing more than an exemplary model of moral behavior and action, if Christ is to serve as nothing more than inspiration to us to repent, to believe, and to live a life of righteous faith... then who, ultimately, is responsible for our salvation?
One of the key aspects of the Reformed faith, again, is that we are ourselves incapable of putting ourselves on a right footing with God. It's not that God is impossible to satisfy, that God is unforgiving and unrelenting in God's zealous wrath against our sins, but that every attempt we make is inherently flawed.
We're like the four-year-old child who gets it in his mind to make breakfast in bed for Mommy. We have the best intentions - we really do! We want to do something good, but we don't know how. We're not capable of doing it right. We have an idea here and there of what it should look like. We know that pancakes need flour and water and sugar, that we need to crack the eggs open and put them in the frying pan to make them how Mommy likes them. We know that Mommy puts a scoop of coffee in the pot and then turns it on and it makes coffee for him to drink. But when we try to reproduce those things the way Mommy does, it doesn't turn out the way we think it should. The pancake batter flies all over the kitchen because we turned the mixer on its highest setting. The scrambled eggs we make are mixed with broken up eggshells. We put a huge heaping pile of coffee into the machine, but don't realize we need the filter, and so there is a watery coffee waterfall pouring over the counter and onto the floor. And all the while we're doing all this, Mommy has woken up and heard the terrible cacophony happening in the kitchen, has come out to investigate, and is now staring in abject horror at the chaos that used to be her kitchen, as well as the four year old with big saucer-eyes welling with tears because we know we're in trouble.
If Jesus is no more than a good moral example to follow, then we're still those four year old children trying to make breakfast in bed. Jesus becomes a show on the Food Network that we're trying to watch to show us how to do it better, or a cookbook with all the precise instructions that we're supposed to follow. But because we're still that four year old child, the show goes by too fast for us, we still miss important steps. We don't know how to read the recipe in the cookbook and the pictures don't help us understand it enough. We still make mistakes, we still make a mess out of the kitchen, and we still have an exasperated mother who comes in on us.
In the Reformed tradition, we humbly recognize that Christ's example is simply too lofty, too impossible for us to follow. We are not Christ. We can never be Christ. We should continually strive to emulate Christ's example, but we nevertheless recognize that we can never perfectly replicate the life that Christ gives us as an example. And so, since we cannot perfectly replicate the flawless life of obedience and righteousness embodied in Jesus' incarnation, we must rely on the promise of the Bible that Christ's life of faithfulness is enough on our behalf. Christ's life serves as a replacement for our own, a divine "switcheroo" that replaces our own sinfulness with Christ's righteousness.
The Moral Influence theory doesn't really allow for this kind of conception of Christ's agency in our atonement. We are presented with a God who, though ultimately more forgiving and welcoming to us than other models, nevertheless can only fully accept us if we repent, if we live out the life demonstrated to us in Christ, and if we become transformed by Christ's example. These are all good and admirable goals to push toward, but if the responsibility for our atonement is solely ours, then we can never attain that "at-one-ment" with God. That's a significant hole in the theory for me, and it's something that needs addressing in order to be a fully acceptable theory.
Continuing the Search
So with these questions now in mind, with these two/three vastly different models of atonement now before us, it seems that we're stymied once more. Are there other models, other options that are more acceptable, more accessible, more enticing? Let's continue the search. In the next installment, we'll explore another two closely related theories: Ransom Theory or Christus Victor.
In the first entry we started by exploring what atonement is, and then went in-depth with the most common model that we see in both Catholic and Protestant churches: Satisfaction/Penal Atonement. We see how the Satisfaction model stacks up, both its pros and its cons, and we see that it is still the most commonly-known and used model of atonement in our culture today. But if this model isn't... pardon the pun... satisfactory, then what other models have been proposed, and how do they look, instead?
As we noted earlier, Anselm kicked much of this debate off because he was unhappy with the model that had been predominant in the early church up to his time - let's take a look at that model now and see what it might reveal to us. Was there a real need for Anselm to develop this alternative model? Would we be better off to go back to the ways of the original church founders and to understand their model of atonement? Or was Anselm right in seeking further satisfaction through his own model?
The Moral Influence Theory of Atonement
Everybody get your card binders out - it's time to add another saint to our collection!
 |
| St. Augustine of Hippo, patron saint of tiny houses |
The Moral Influence theory is perhaps the oldest theory of atonement in Christian theological history, with evidence for its teaching being found in Christian writings as early as the second century. In its simplest terms, this theory states that the ministry and aim of Jesus Christ in his incarnation, ministry, life, death, and resurrection was that of bringing about a positive moral change to humanity. In other words, Jesus sought to transform the world through his own example, to inspire others to do the same, and to therefore bring salvation to humanity through its own reformation. In this model, Jesus' death is seen as an act of martyrdom - this act, combined with the resurrection, is such a powerful model of faithfulness and perfect moral behavior that it serves as an inspiration for each and every one of us to be wiling to go and do likewise.
This is a model of atonement theory that has a number of factors at work in its favor - one of the biggest factors being, of course, its longstanding history in the tradition and teaching of the church. As I mentioned earlier, Augustine of Hippo wrote on this theory somewhere around the late 4th/early 5th century. Before Augustine, other Christian writings dating as far back as the second century seem to almost expressly teach this model of atonement. To this day, in fact, the Moral Influence theory remains a significant part of Eastern Orthodox doctrine, particularly in the theological goal of theosis, or "divinization," by which a Christian is able to grow more and more in God's likeness through the salvific work of Christ. Because of Christ's incarnation and example, and because of his being both fully God and fully human in life, death, and resurrection, humanity is enabled to participate in God's own divine nature - more simply put, we are united to God in Christ. The Moral Influence theory is also a keystone for understanding Christ in most circles of Liberal theology - it fits a more progressive model of Christ that does not require so strong a dependence on the supernatural, while also still maintaining integrity to the teachings found in the Gospels.
So, then, how does it hold up in light of scripture, itself? My own Reformed tradition teaches that Scripture is supposed to be the gold standard by which all doctrine is weighed, so how does this Moral Influence theory measure up? Does it fit with the message of the Gospel in such a way that we could call it compatible, or was Anselm right in his assessment and desire to create a better working model? Let's explore some of the prominent themes of the Moral Influence theory and see how they are reflected in the Gospels, themselves:
1. Jesus as Teacher
One of the most common roles we see Jesus filling in the Gospels is that of the teacher. His disciples call him "Rabbi" or "Rabboni" (especially in John's gospel, but also particularly in Mark), which means "teacher." He goes from town to town, not just healing people and performing miracles, but teaching about the Kingdom of God as he goes. He frequently tells parables in order to teach a particular idea or concept about God, and in all but Mark's gospel, he devotes great amounts of time to giving sermons, discourses, and long teachings on moral behavior - the "Sermon on the Mount" of Matthew's gospel contains not only the famous Beatitudes, but also the passages of "It is said... but I say unto you..." teachings.
The majority of these teachings of Jesus have to do with morality, with how people of the Kingdom should act and what that Kingdom looks like in practice. Jesus devotes a great deal of his teachings to clarifying, correcting, and reforming the current Jewish practices of his day. He teaches that people are to be "the light of the world" (Matthew 5:14) and encourages people to "let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father in heaven." (Matt. 5:16) He criticizes many of the practices, not because he views the laws that they reflect as wrong, but because of the contents of the hearts of those who do them: people who do good deeds for the sake of receiving praise for themselves, people who pray loudly in public so that others can see their piety and admire them, etc.
Even the "Great Commission" of Matthew 28 carries out this same theme as Jesus tells the disciples to "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you." (Matt. 28:19-20a, emphasis mine)
Because so much of Jesus' ministry centers around teaching, and especially moral teaching, we can begin to see a good deal of support for the Moral Influence theory beginning to shape up already.
2. Jesus as Exemplar
Not only does Jesus teach his disciples to do and act in ways reflective of the Kingdom, but Jesus demonstrates those behaviors in his own actions and life. He goes toe-to-toe with Satan, facing temptation in the desert without succumbing, but relies on Scripture as his sustenance and defense over and over again. He reaches out to the lost, the unwanted, the disenfranchised members of his society and provides them healing, inclusion, and forgiveness. He follows the religious practices of his day, giving worship at the temple, attending the synagogues and participating in various religious ceremonies, most notably the Passover meal (which then becomes the basis of the Last Supper, which we celebrate today in the Christian church as Communion or Eucharist). He provides an example to each of us in his life that we are encouraged to emulate with all of our being. Paul writes to the church in Corinth that he is an "imitator of Christ" as he encourages them to imitate him (1 Corinthians 11:1). He encourages the Philippians to "Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death - even death on a cross." (Philippians 2:5-8) The author of the letter to the Hebrews writes that we should "run with perseverance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus the pioneer and perfecter of our faith, who for the sake of the joy that was set before him endured the cross" (Hebrews 12:1-2, emphasis mine).
Christ's life most certainly serves as a prime example of what true, Christian life should look like. By allowing ourselves to be transformed by Christ's life, death, and resurrection, we can be encouraged to imitate Christ in our own lives, as well.
3. Christ as Founder of the Church
We've already covered the Great Commission, in which Jesus instructs the disciples to go and make more disciples. And we may be familiar with the passage in which Jesus speaks to Peter and tells him "On this rock I will build my church" (Matt. 16:18), which the Roman Catholic church uses as the basis for Peter as the first Pope and the establishment of the Apostolic lineage by which Christ's authority given to the church has been passed down throughout the ages.
But where the idea of Christ as founder of the church really takes root for the Moral Influence theory is in the book of Acts, as we see the church truly begin and take shape. The disciples are gathered together and living out their lives as followers of Christ. They go out and do the same things Christ did: teaching, healing, proclaiming the coming of the Kingdom... and because of the transformation each of them receives in Christ (and through the power of the Spirit at Pentecost), they succeed in carrying out Christ's mission on earth and continuing it as the Church. Through the witness of these first faithful men and women who had followed Christ while he was alive, who had seen him give up his life on the cross, and had further encountered him after the resurrection, a whole new movement takes form and grows, whereby Christ's example and ministry are continued. Christ's influence in the early Christian movement is clear, and so we add one more element of support into our consideration.
4. Christ as Martyr
"No one has greater love than this, to lay down one's life for one's friends." (John 15:13) Jesus tells this to the disciples and emphasizes the greatness of self-sacrifice in order that others may have life. He speaks of his own sacrificial death throughout the Gospels - "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep." (John 10:11) "See, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be handed over to the chief priests and the scribes, and they will condemn him to death; then they will hand him over to the Gentiles; they will mock him, and spit upon him, and flog him, and kill him; and after three days he will rise again." (Mark 10:33-34).
In a method similar to the Satisfaction/Penal substitution models, Jesus' death is still a big deal. But unlike the Satisfaction model, Jesus' death is neither required nor is it objectively significant for atonement itself to happen. It is more the affective quality of Jesus' martyrdom, that act of such extreme, selfless, unconditional love for all of humanity, that serves to enact moral change in each of us through our being encountered by it. It is the act that causes us to ask "What wondrous love is this?" on Good Friday, to sing glad Alleluias and proclaim "You ask me how I know he lives, he lives within my heart!" on Easter Sunday, and to sing "They will know we are Christians by our Love" throughout the whole year.
Assessing the model: what works and what doesn't?
Now that we've laid out the basics of the model and a basis of support for its consideration, we're left to decide: does this model work? What are the benefits of such a model? What questions and/or issues does it raise that we still need to wrestle with?
One of the things that I actually appreciate about working on this series is that it is giving me a chance to revisit these models, to wrestle with them, and to evaluate them even as I'm writing them. Which is why I'll make a confession here: when I first set out to tackle the Moral Influence model, I was skeptical of it, and I still have reservations on the theory itself that I will address momentarily. But as I wrote on it and dug into its details, I've started to see that there are some definite, strong benefits to such a model of atonement. NOTE: in assessing this model, I'm attempting to do so on its own merits, but I also come at it from the lens of my own tradition and background, which comes primarily out of the Penal Substitution model, and so some of this assessment is purely a matter of comparing and contrasting these two models against each other.
First and foremost, Moral Influence has the benefit of re-orienting the very focus of atonement for us. In Satisfaction theory, God's love is tempered by God's justice and wrath. God wants to love us, but God can't ignore our sin or simply forgive it without undermining God's own righteousness. Moral Influence posits instead that God loves us, period. And it is the love of God demonstrated to us in Jesus Christ that is enough to utterly transform us through its teaching and example, thereby allowing us to be reunited to God through Christ's love. As Clement of Alexandria, one of the early church fathers, writes:
For [Christ] came down, for this he assumed human nature, for this he willingly endured the sufferings of humanity, that by being reduced to the measure of our weakness, he might raise us to the measure of his power. And just before he poured out his offering, when he gave himself as a ransom, he left us a new testament: “I give you my love” (John 13:34). What is the nature and extent of this love? For each of us he laid down his life, the life which was worth the whole universe, and he requires in return that we should do the same for each other.To put it another way, Moral Influence theory presents us with a God who is not as concerned about the sins we have already committed in the past as much as God is concerned first and foremost with the moral transformation of an individual. We have a God who very closely fits the description of love in 1 Corinthians 13, to the effect that we could read the passage: "[God] is patient; [God] is kind; [God] is not envious or boastful or arrogant or rude. [God] does not insist on [God's] own way; [God] is not irritable or resentful; [God] does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth. [God] bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. [God] never ends."
Moral Influence simplifies things for us, in that we don't have to work out as many of the why's, the how's, the wherefore's of Christ - Christ didn't necessarily need to die on the cross in this model, and certainly not for the purpose of satisfying some Draconian blood-lust on God's behalf; but because he loved us as much as he did, he nevertheless went willingly to give his life on our behalf. That willingness to die, not because it is what was required to appease a just God, but because of Jesus' depth of love for all humanity, is the greatest motivating and transforming factor that can possibly be at work in our own hearts and spirits. As Paul writes, "the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all, therefore all have died." (2 Corinthians 5:14 ESV)
And yet there are still some serious questions that this model raises for me, despite the many positive things I have now discovered and explored so far:
The centrality of Christ
We established that Moral Influence theory simplifies things for us - but does it simplify things too much? As we already saw in the Satisfaction theories, there are issues with seeing atonement as a kind of "transaction" or "balance-sheet," but if we move in the direction of Moral Influence, I have to pause and ask: do we throw the baby out with the bath-water?
A lot of this question boils down to a distinction between subjective and objective views of atonement. In most of the models for atonement that I will be exploring in this series, Jesus' life, death, resurrection and ascension create a very distinctive, objective change in the relationship between God and humanity, and that change happens primarily in God's relationship to us. In Satisfaction/Substitution models, that change is affected by the appeasement of God's wrath against injustice and sin through Jesus Christ's substitution/obedience on our behalf. Because of Christ, God literally views humanity differently because God views humanity through the lens of Christ. Whenever God looks at humanity, God doesn't see Mike, the guy who drinks too much on the weekend and sleeps away his hangover on Sunday mornings, or Becca, the girl who lies to her boss about the money missing from the cash register during closing shifts; God sees Jesus Christ, who tells them that he has redeemed Mike and Becca and made them acceptable. This is one of the beautiful concepts that lies underneath the idea of Satisfaction theories that is incredibly important. We are seen as objectively different in God's eyes because of Christ's intercession on our behalf.
If the effect of the entire incarnation of Christ, however, is only subjective - if Jesus only serves as a catalyst for moral change through his example - then our atonement to God is arguably no longer directly the work of Christ as much as it is a somewhat intentional side effect. In the Reformed tradition, it is the work of Christ that is absolutely central to Christian faith - not just the way we understand salvation, but the way we understand who we are as a result. Without Christ's work, humanity is entirely lost. Without Christ, we are enslaved to sin and death. Without Christ, we are helpless. Christ's act of atonement applies to each of us universally, regardless of whether we choose to acknowledge and accept this act or not. In other words, just as we are incapable of resisting sin, we are also thereby incapable of resisting Christ's grace extended to us.
The Moral Influence model doesn't emphasize this centrality of Christ in as strong a manner, however. If Christ's work only accomplished on a subjective level, then what is it that makes Jesus, the movement that he inspired, and the morals that it teaches unique from any other moral system? What is it, exactly, that Christ accomplishes?
The agency of Christ
On this same level - in fact, building off of this idea of the centrality of Christ - one of the other significant issues that gives me pause in considering the Moral Influence model is the very way by which atonement is enacted - as we start to question what it is that Christ accomplishes in this form of atonement, it brings about a significant realization: if Christ is nothing more than an exemplary model of moral behavior and action, if Christ is to serve as nothing more than inspiration to us to repent, to believe, and to live a life of righteous faith... then who, ultimately, is responsible for our salvation?
One of the key aspects of the Reformed faith, again, is that we are ourselves incapable of putting ourselves on a right footing with God. It's not that God is impossible to satisfy, that God is unforgiving and unrelenting in God's zealous wrath against our sins, but that every attempt we make is inherently flawed.
We're like the four-year-old child who gets it in his mind to make breakfast in bed for Mommy. We have the best intentions - we really do! We want to do something good, but we don't know how. We're not capable of doing it right. We have an idea here and there of what it should look like. We know that pancakes need flour and water and sugar, that we need to crack the eggs open and put them in the frying pan to make them how Mommy likes them. We know that Mommy puts a scoop of coffee in the pot and then turns it on and it makes coffee for him to drink. But when we try to reproduce those things the way Mommy does, it doesn't turn out the way we think it should. The pancake batter flies all over the kitchen because we turned the mixer on its highest setting. The scrambled eggs we make are mixed with broken up eggshells. We put a huge heaping pile of coffee into the machine, but don't realize we need the filter, and so there is a watery coffee waterfall pouring over the counter and onto the floor. And all the while we're doing all this, Mommy has woken up and heard the terrible cacophony happening in the kitchen, has come out to investigate, and is now staring in abject horror at the chaos that used to be her kitchen, as well as the four year old with big saucer-eyes welling with tears because we know we're in trouble.
If Jesus is no more than a good moral example to follow, then we're still those four year old children trying to make breakfast in bed. Jesus becomes a show on the Food Network that we're trying to watch to show us how to do it better, or a cookbook with all the precise instructions that we're supposed to follow. But because we're still that four year old child, the show goes by too fast for us, we still miss important steps. We don't know how to read the recipe in the cookbook and the pictures don't help us understand it enough. We still make mistakes, we still make a mess out of the kitchen, and we still have an exasperated mother who comes in on us.
In the Reformed tradition, we humbly recognize that Christ's example is simply too lofty, too impossible for us to follow. We are not Christ. We can never be Christ. We should continually strive to emulate Christ's example, but we nevertheless recognize that we can never perfectly replicate the life that Christ gives us as an example. And so, since we cannot perfectly replicate the flawless life of obedience and righteousness embodied in Jesus' incarnation, we must rely on the promise of the Bible that Christ's life of faithfulness is enough on our behalf. Christ's life serves as a replacement for our own, a divine "switcheroo" that replaces our own sinfulness with Christ's righteousness.
The Moral Influence theory doesn't really allow for this kind of conception of Christ's agency in our atonement. We are presented with a God who, though ultimately more forgiving and welcoming to us than other models, nevertheless can only fully accept us if we repent, if we live out the life demonstrated to us in Christ, and if we become transformed by Christ's example. These are all good and admirable goals to push toward, but if the responsibility for our atonement is solely ours, then we can never attain that "at-one-ment" with God. That's a significant hole in the theory for me, and it's something that needs addressing in order to be a fully acceptable theory.
Continuing the Search
So with these questions now in mind, with these two/three vastly different models of atonement now before us, it seems that we're stymied once more. Are there other models, other options that are more acceptable, more accessible, more enticing? Let's continue the search. In the next installment, we'll explore another two closely related theories: Ransom Theory or Christus Victor.
You are really challenging me to think! Ruth N.
ReplyDelete