|
|
|
|
Foreword
Anabaptist
Theology in Face of Postmodernity
All Christians should learn from Denny
Weaver’s argument, not just persons in the
Anabaptist tradition. In our postmodern time, credibility
is won not by making a claim to universal philosophical
truth, but by demonstrating what difference Christian
faith makes in the laboratory of history. In that
laboratory, the Anabaptist tradition has demonstrated
that it makes a difference and does witness to the way of
Jesus Christ.
That witness also gives us guidance for
understanding the meaning of the atonement. All
Christians know Jesus died for our sins. But ask how his
death took care of our sins, and you are likely to get a
puzzled look. Weaver demonstrates, I think beyond
dispute, that historically, Anabaptist interpretation of
the atonement has emphasized that Jesus’ own way of
faithfulness was crucial to the effectiveness of his
atoning death. Likewise, following Jesus’ way is a
key part of our participating in the benefits of his
death for us.
The classic Christus Victor theory of
the atonement, interpreted with attention to the way of
Jesus in the Gospels—the way Jesus followed in
winning victory over the powers of evil, violence, and
death—holds more promise than other classic theories
of the atonement for Anabaptist faithfulness, and Gospel
faithfulness. Through Jesus’ life, death, and
resurrection, God overcame the powers of evil, violence,
and death. In his ministry, his teaching, his love, his
nonviolence, Jesus confronted the powers. They amassed
their forces against him, and crucified him, but he
stayed faithful to God, and God faithfully gave him the
victory. We participate in the victory through faith that
includes following his way, as part of the church
community where the victory is won.
The Christus Victor understanding
emphasizes that the church is intrinsic to the gospel;
salvation is not only an event for scattered individuals.
This, too, is an important Anabaptist theme. And, I would
add, a theme for many sixteenth century Anabaptists, and
now for many “new Mennonites” is the Christus
Victor understanding that crucial for the Victory of
Jesus is the work of the Holy Spirit, empowering and
sanctifying (see the book of Acts and the letters of
Paul).
Weaver also demonstrates that most
historical Mennonites adopted, from other Christians of
the time, a substitutionary/satisfaction understanding of
the atonement which overlooks these essential Anabaptist
themes: the faithful way of Jesus Christ, nonviolence,
and the community of the church. Therefore Mennonites
began the work of modifying the satisfaction theory to
incorporate these classic Anabaptist themes. Carrying
that work of correction to its logical conclusion will
lead us to adopt the Christus Victor rather than
satisfaction view of atonement.
The Christus Victor understanding is at
least as “classic” and as biblical as the
satisfaction theory. It is strongly affirmed in the
Gospels, in the Book of Revelation—and in the
letters of Paul, especially 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1
Corinthians, and Romans. Furthermore, it was taught by
the early church fathers, especially Irenaeus. It came to
be known as “the classic theory,” or “the
patristic theory,” and was also taught by Martin
Luther in the Reformation, and Bishop Gustaf Aulén in
the twentieth century. It was taught as well by John
Howard Yoder, whose growing influence makes his thought,
in my judgment, almost a classic already.
In his book Keeping Salvation
Ethical, Weaver affirmed that the classic creeds do
witness to truth that is essential to Jesus. Similarly,
one can affirm that the satisfaction theory, if modified,
does have biblical and experiential basis, and does pay
attention to Jesus’ suffering on the cross. But the
same is true of the Christus Victor theory, which
emphasizes the life of Jesus, Jesus’ submission to
the cross, and the resurrection. It can readily
incorporate the truth in the satisfaction theory.
This is not relativism. The criterion
for testing the truth of an understanding of the
atonement or any other doctrine is, says Weaver, “a
criterion accessible to all, namely the narrative of
Jesus” (p. 69).”If Jesus Christ is our
foundation, then it is Jesus’ story and the
‘politics of Jesus’—not the shape of a
national ethos or fourth- and fifth-century creedal
formulas—that should determine the contour of our
theological agenda” (p. 47). Here, I believe, is the
witness for our time, which looks for credibility in
lives that follow Jesus Christ. We need to do the rich
exegesis of the gospel story to develop the meaning more
fully, and to give thanks to God for what God has done
and is now doing in Christ!
Glen Stassen, Lewis Smedes Professor of Christian
Ethics
Fuller Theological Seminary
Pasadena, California
Anabaptist Theology in Face
of Postmodernity orders:
|
|
