Two great articles that explore the important relationship between theories of atonement and faith expressed in practice. The first is Justice-ified by Faith - David Fitch Fitch highlights the theological culprits behind the division of the doctrine of salvation and social justice. He explores the importance of the classical view and the Christus Victor theories of atonement versus penal substitution only. He also points to the problems with a narrowly defined understading of “justification by faith.”
Evangelicals (of which I am one) often describe salvation as a personal relationship with God. It is intensely individual. In Christ I am justified before God as an individual. And then, after being justified through faith in Christ, I pursue a personal daily relationship with God as well as personal holiness and then of course (if we get to it) social justice. It is an add-on. In this way we split personal salvation and social justice.
justification… …cannot be separated from being part of the new justice/righteousness God is working in the world…
In this post: Christus Victor: Atonement for the Postmodern World? by Jason Clark Jason underscores a number of the reasons why the Christus Victor theory has so much resonance with postmoderns. He also does a great job outlining some of the strengths and weaknesses of the Chistus Victor theory and the implications.
Penal substitution, which really emerged with Anselm in the 11th century, and found its zenith in the modern church, was not the preferred understanding of atonement by the early church and church fathers. In a modern world that saw truth through rational and empirical eyes, the forensic and legal metaphor of penal substitution was powerful and connecting.
The postmodern world has had epistemological crises about knowing. At it’s best there is a rediscovering that truth is also relational, intuitive, and not always objective. At it’s worst the rejection of objective truth, overlays the metaphor of penal substitution and sees an angry God, who kills his son, an image of cosmic child abuse.
Now we can resist that view, demanding people understand atonement that way, or forever live in error, or we can be sympathetic to the cultural context that causes it, and explore how else atonement might be explored…
A blog about present and future church, contemporary culture, intercultural dynamics, and the implications of Jesus' Gospel of the Kingdom in today's context. 
Billy:
In my opinion, there are two false assumptions at work in these articles. (1) The notion that we must choose between between penal substituion and Christ Victor views of the atonement. In fact, the New Testament and the Fathers speak both of Christ dying in our place and of Christ’s death being a victory over sin. When it comes to theories of the atonement, it’s a matter of both/and rather than either/or. (2) The notion that the penal substitution theory is responsible for the division between justification and sanctification (broadly construed to include “social justice” concerns. In fact, very Christian traditions that incorporate penal substition into their atonement theology have a strong emphasis on sanctification, and even the proper arrangement of society. One thinks, here, of the various wings of the Reformed church, beginning in Geneva and continuing into Scotland, Holland, and the American colonies of the Puritans. Rather, it seems to me that the highly individualistic understanding of salvation is a uniquely American phenomenon, based on our highly individualistic culture, and therefore separable from penal substitution per se. Also, the utterly baleful result of dispensationalism has been to make social concerns irrelevant (since we’ll all be raptured out of here). Also, the extreme once-saved-always-saved doctrine of dispensationalists and Baptists (which is not the same thing as traditional Reformed doctrines of perseverance) utterly separates justification from sanctification.
A good, representative sample of mainstream evangelical thinking on the atonement is JOhn Stott’s The Cross of Christ, which, while giving penal substitution pride of place, nonetheless recognizes the full-orbed dimensions of the atonement, including Christus Victor and moral influence theories. And one can hardly fault John Stott for being slack of social concern.
One final terminological pet peeve: The term “social justice” is an odd one. What other kind of justice is there? Justice is an inherently social term, the status of right relations among people. Calling justice social justice is a bit like calling a river a wet river.
George
I agree with the need to incorporate various theories of atonement into an authentically christian understanding. I think that is actually what Jason Clark is trying to say (although he concedes that postmoderns have an easier time with Christus Victor). At the same time, I agree with Fitch’s criticism that some groups tend more exlusively to PS theory and find that the logical conclusion is a very weak engagement with the social dimension of the Gospel.
I would like to do a study on the concept of Justice in Biblical literature. Over lunch, you had mentioned the idea that “Justice” is a word used frequently in scripture and often burdened with differing understandings by the reader. I completely agree. Just as “peace” or “shalom” has a much more specific meaning that our modern western understanding of “peace” I would love to do a biblical study on “justice.” Any good resource recommendations?
I agree with much of what has been written (both the article by Jason Clark and the criticisms of it). One of the largest problems I see in the evangelical circuit is the over emphasis of tradition above relevance. Tradition is important, to be sure, for a number of reasons, but bringing the gospel to the ears of a culture by making it relevant to that culture is absolutely essential, and when you look at the way Jesus spread his message, he did so using parables and stories that would make his message relevant to his audience. Today, in this postmodern culture, the theory of atonement via Christus Victor is seemingly the most relevant expression. I must state; however, that I strongly hold that it will always remain essential to address all atonement theories, angles, and expressions to further a fuller and more dense understanding of the infinite and ultimately mysterious act of atonement. This is why it is so important to assume a posture of conversation so that different and new angles can be introduced, but the question is, how do we start off that conversation? This is where I would argue, what is relevant takes precedence over tradition. Engage ideas and thoughts with relevant perspectives, and then in the midst of that conversation the other theories and expressions will manifest.
Austin:
When you say, “what is relevant takes precedence over tradition,” you mean in terms of starting our conversations with postmoderns, correct? If so, I agree with you. Postmoderns–and unbelievers generally–will not be interested in the Christian tradition until they see its relevance within their frame of reference. If, however, you’re saying that relevance is more theologically normative than tradition, I would have to disagree. (But I don’t think that’s what you’re saying.) Just wanted to make sure we’re on the same page.
Apropos of various theories of the atonement, Beilby and Eddy’s new book, The Nature of the Atonement:Four Views, looks like interesting reading.
George
Billy:
In my opinion, any word study of biblical terminology must begin with Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament or (as a second choice) with Brown’s New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology. Both sources investigate the meanings of New Testament words in in their Hebrew OT usage, LXX usage, classical Greek usage, and finally New Testament usage. No word study can begin without such investigation.
Once the Bible has been investigated, we can turn to the development of justice within the Christian tradition. Alister McGrath’s Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification is the best historical work I know of. Another book is The Justification Reader by Thomas Oden. I know the topic is justice–broadly conceived–but no Christian doctrine of justice can proceed without a consideration of justification as well. What Paul calls “the righteousness of God,” after all, can just as legitimately be translated as “the justice of God.”
Of course, the doctrine of justification is a topic of huge debate, once again, thanks to the so-called “new perspective on Paul,” pioneered by James D.G. Dunn and N.T. Wright. Dunn sets out his perspective on justification in his Theology of Paul the Apostle and commentary on Romans. (He’s also got a forthcoming book simply entitled, The New Perspective on Paul.) Wright lays out his perspective in The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology. Peter Stuhlmacher critiques the “new perspective” in Revisiting Paul’s Doctrine of Justification, as does Mark Seifrid in Christ, our Righteousness: Paul’s Theology of Justification. If you’re really interested in a detailed, academic critique of the “new perspective,” see D.A. Carson et al, Justification and Variegated Nomism (2 vols.).
The most influential secular treatment of justice is John Rawls, A Theory of Justice, and the standard libertarian critique of it is Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State, and Utopia. A critique of “social justice” from a classically liberal perspective can be found in Law, Legislation, and Liberty, Vol. 2: The Mirage of Social Justice by Friedrich von Hayek.
From a specifically theological perspective, my former teacher Miroslav Volf has written an interesting book on criminal justice entitled Beyond Retribution. Finally, there’s a new book edited by P.C. Kemeny, Church, State, and Public Justice: Five Views.
I’m sure there are many other books out there, but these are the ones I know of, have read, or have seen at the bookstore. Hopefully, they’re a good start.
George
Yeah, thanks George for clearing that up, that is what I meant.
Billy-
Greg Koukl on my favorite radio podcast/program on the topic of the atonement: they get right into it right away.
http://www.kfuoam.org/mp3/Issues7/Issues_Etc_Jul_17b.mp3
-Barron