Although this “ransom” motif is often despised as crass and mythological, it manifests some of the processes of scapegoating and victimization of which liberation movements have made us newly aware. Liberation theology concerns domination by the powers of evil, whose claim is expressed in “structures of evil” and enforced through a combination of guilt and fear. In liberation the framework of legalism (which can be “just” as well as oppressive) is not simply abolished; rather, it is brought to defeat itself in its very administration. Through inflicting undeserved suffering the powers of domination are unmasked and discredited, losing moral authority in the forum of public opinion. The captives are not only freed from moral and psychological bondage but are empowered for a new mode of life.
2. Atonement as a change in the human relationship to God is present in New Testament and patristic thought, especially in the motif of sacrifice, either as “expiating” human sins or as “propitiating” God’s anger, but it was not developed into a theory until the medieval and Reformation periods.
Anselm’s Cur Deus Homo set the stage by thinking of God on the model of the feudal overlord whose honor is offended by sinful humanity. God’s justice requires either punishment (involuntary suffering and damnation) or satisfaction (making up for the offense through voluntary suffering, a model for which was at hand in the practice of penance). In keeping with the second possibility, satisfaction is offered by Christ as God-human, whose acts are not only sinless, but of infinite merit.
The Reformers shifted the focus from God’s honor, which can be satisfied through penitential sacrifice, to God’s wrath, which seems rather to demand punishment. Thus Christ is viewed as the “substitute” for sinful humanity, bearing the full force of God’s wrath and rejection on the cross.
Because this theory involves an “exchange” between a sinful humanity, which deserves God’s condemnation, and the sinless Christ, who enacts God’s love, it seems to introduce a division, or at least a tension, into God. Salvation, to be sure, is initiated by God, in order to accomplish God’s initial purposes for creation; but it is presented as resolving a problem “within God,” as though the Son must satisfy the conditions of divine justice, or even propitiate the Father’s wrath, in order that sinners be forgiven or justified.
All theories of this type, furthermore, view suffering, and even punishment, as salvific—an assumption that has been questioned on moral and psychological grounds, most recently by liberation and feminist theologians who see it as a reinforcement of domination and abuse. And yet in today’s theology the cross is often linked with a wider divine suffering and identification with those who suffer in order to overcome evil. Which kind of suffering must be rejected, and which can be accepted?
3. Atonement as a change within human being is linked with Peter Abelard in the eleventh century and with modern liberal theology. Here the cross is viewed as the expression of God’s forgiving love for sinful humanity, even in the face of human rebellion and violence toward its bearer. Because the goal is understood to be a change in human attitude and mode of life, this theory is called the “moral influence” theory—a term often misunderstood, for it means not “merely” moral or exemplary, but influencing the inmost affections through an appeal that is consciously apprehended. The emphasis is upon the dynamics of human subjectivity, human possibilities for growth, and the transforming role of interpersonal relations.
If there is a current trend, it is away from insistence upon a single metaphor for atonement and the conceptual framework that seems to grow from it, and toward appreciation of the variety of images, each of which suggests something important about divine initiative, human response, and continuing obstacles to the renewal of life.
EUGENE TESELLE
Bibliography
Joanne Carlson Brown and Carole R. Bohn, eds., Christianity, Patriarchy, and Abuse: A Feminist Critique.
Dennis Edwards, What Are They Saying About Salvation?
Paul S. Fiddes, Past Event and Present Salvation: The Christian Idea of Atonement.
Robert S. Franks, The Work of Christ: A Historical Study of Christian Doctrine.
Colin E. Gunton, The Actuality of Atonement: A Study of Metaphor, Rationality, and the Christian Tradition.
Walter Wink, The Powers, 3 volumes.
Cross-Reference: Anthropology, Christology, Evil, Justification, Sin, Soteriology, Suffering.
AUTHORITY
The issue of authority is central for Christian theology. Most broadly, authority deals with the sources of legitimation for theological assertions. Given the plurality of theological positions within the Christian orb today and the many theological methods and styles on the contemporary scene, it is apparent that sources of authority are quite varied. Most basically, Christian theology deals with the living God who is the source of all. This includes the recognition that it is God who “authorizes” theological claims. Yet recognizing this point raises the further issue of how humans can discern and understand the means God uses to disclose God’s truth. How are theological truth claims authorized?
Avenues of Authority. Current approaches to the issue of authority have their roots in the history of Christian theology. An appreciation of today’s discussions can be enhanced by looking at the sources from which these approaches emerge.
Since the earliest days of the church, theologians have wrestled with the question of how God’s “authority” is to be understood and the avenues by which it comes to us. Since this is such a basic question, other theological issues and doctrines have taken their trajectories from the various viewpoints established. Several such channels of authority have functioned in normative ways for Christian theology.
1. Church. After the death of the apostles of Jesus, the emerging Christian community faced the question of how God’s authority would be maintained. Through Jesus and his immediate disciples, the community experienced what it considered to be God’s authoritative word and presence. As the early centuries went on, however, three important new sources of authority emerged in the church: the canon of Scripture (Old and New Testaments); the creeds of the church and church councils; and the advancing authority ascribed to church leaders, such as bishops, elders, and deacons. The Middle Ages saw the growth of the papacy and the structured authority of the Roman Catholic Church as the major expression of Christianity in the Western world. Within the Roman church, the sources of Scripture and tradition vied for a place as the ultimate authority for the church’s life. Persons who appealed to the tradition of the church as having its roots in the church’s oral traditions and ultimately with the apostles themselves argued that these ecclesiastical traditions are the arbiters of validity. The Scriptures gain the authority conferred to them by the church, and the Christian community is the adjudicator of Christian doctrine.
2. Scripture. The Protestant Reformers challenged this conception of the church’s authority by rejecting the primacy of the papacy and the magisterium as the foremost interpreters of Christian doctrine. Martin Luther contended that Scripture interprets itself through the work of the Holy Spirit. John Calvin, agreeing with this stance, went on to argue that the church is built on the Word of God, “the teaching of apostles and prophets” (Eph. 2:20), now found for the church in the writings of Holy Scripture (Institutes of the Christian Religion 4.2.4). For Calvin, Scripture is the “Word of God” (Institutes 1.7.1), superior to all human wisdom since it originates with God. God used human writers, accommodating the divine wisdom to human capacities for understanding and thus communicating God’s divine message through human thought forms. Scripture authenticates