How would you end that sentence? The answer might role off your tongue or it may cause you to stumble. Whatever the case may be for you, it is a question that is being re-examined today. Why did Jesus die? And what (if anything) did his death accomplish?
I recently wrote a paper tracing the understanding of Christ's death as victory (Christus Victor) throughout church history. It is an ancient concept that has made headway in recent years. In essence the death of Jesus in the Christus Victor model is not a payment to God for the penalty of humanity's sin; rather it is the result of divine conflict with the powers of evil. Jesus assumes humanity within himself and suffers death in order to triumph over it through resurrection.
The ancients explained this phenomenon using metaphors that are not necessarily adequate today: Jesus died in order to trick the devil. He fooled the devil by offering his humanity in death; the devil took the bait and Jesus defeated him because his divinity could not be contained by death.
J. Denny Weaver, a modern Anabaptist theologian, recasts Christus Victor by describing it in a more historical/material way. He writes, Christ’s conflict took place with the evil forces here on earth. Jesus confronted the political power of Rome and the religious authority of Judaism. The kingdom that he inaugurated “establishes a new social order which stands over against – in confrontation with – the structures of this world.”*
Obviously there are many others who also utilizing the idea of Christ's death as victory. Liberation theologians recognize that in Christ, God joined in the sufferings of the oppressed and triumphed over their oppressors in resurrection. Black and Feminist theologians also recognize the importance of seeing Christ's death as victory. People who are oppressed resist the idea of passively submitting to suffering (in order to be saved or to save others) because too often it simply reinforces the tyrannical powers that be instead of critiquing them.
The crucifixion of God is too incredible, too absurd, too incomprehensible for us to completely explain. With that said, we must continue to faithfully offer our explanations of the pinnacle event in human history, knowing that we can only see dimly and that none of our theories have the monopoly on the death of God.
*J. Denny Weaver, “Atonement for the Nonconstantinian Church”, Modern Theology (6.04 July 1990) 308.
2 comments:
I would end that sentence: Jesus died for me.
I definitely am drawn to this model, too, J. I would have to add that Jesus' resurrection seems to play as big a role if not bigger in the Christus Victor model. The feminist/liberationist critique of the way the cross has been overly-glorified is that it glorifies suffering and oppression in a way that only powerful people who have not truly suffered because of social oppression would glorify it. Those who experience suffering in a way that is daily and extreme know that there is little beautiful about it. This is not to say we westerners/powerful ones do not suffer in personal or existential ways, but we often have a hard time knowing what it is to suffer at the hands of systematic and ruthless social, physical, and economic oppression.
The resurrection is the hope for the oppressed- that God's identification with them in suffering is not the only consolation- they are set free in God's victory over death in the resurrection.
I am thinking now of some of the churches I attended in South America/Mexico...their emphasis is certainly on victory where we in the west tend to sing a lot about the cross...its just interesting how your social and economic perspective influences theology so deeply.
Post a Comment