The "Orthodox" Trend...
This last semester I had the pleasure of being mentored by Dr. Sanders while Henderson (hopefully Dr. Henderson) was on sabbatical. Office hours were always helpful and I appreciated his feed back on my paper.
--
In Don Rags Dr. Sanders brought up my paper in the context of modern theology. Turns out that my thesis is a relatively new position that is presently being adopted and developed in the scholarly world. Sanders stated, "I don't know how you are tuned into this movement, since you are reading the classics, but this is the modern orthodox trend." Scholars are finding narrow views of the cross to be unsatisfying and unfaithful to the biblical witness.
--
This brings me to the point of this post. During office hours, Dr. Sanders asked me, after we talked about my paper, "What now? So you made your argument and strongly supported your claims with Scripture. But what now?" To be honest, I was not sure how to answer him, so I didn't say much.
At Don Rags he brought the question up again and voiced his concern in regards to this new approach to the cross in studying the atonement. He said that he was worried that Christians might loose specificity when thinking about the cross. Before, Christians would think about the cross in singular terms i.e. "Jesus paid my debt," and so the cross was clear to them and this singular clarity served to focus their thoughts on the topic.
But the adoption of a multi-faceted conception of the cross has the potential of encouraging a "its just a mystery" mentality that leaves the cross as a vague, undefined event. This broad perspective can lead to imprecise thinking about the cross, till the atonement becomes something that God did that one time that did something for me in some way that some how accomplished God's redemptive purpose. Quickly it becomes something (whatever it is) that we just can't explain in any way, since it is too great, too "multi-faceted." This is often the result of intellectual laziness--it’s like taking a book, removing all the paragraphs, and keeping the chapter headings because who is going to understand the paragraphs anyways? This redaction forebodes significant loss.
When we lose all the details we fail to see what Christ has done on the cross. By acknowledging more details of the atonement revealed in Scripture we are, in a strange way, in danger of loosing it as we find it--we are in danger of not knowing it by way of understanding it.
I find this warning pretty apt after this last semester of Torrey. So much theology and mysticism was thrown at me that it all became unspecific ramblings about something that is supposedly true. This is a terrible trap to fall into, but worse to fall into it and not realize it. (Lord, in Thy light do we see light, I thank Thee that Thou dost reveal our faults unto us and continue to reveal our vices that sow death, and would lead to death if not for Thy protection, sovereign guidance, and redemption in Christ Jesus. Glory to God in the Highest, Glory to God!)
I thought that this was helpful advice and an interesting report on the state of modern atonement studies.
--
In closing:
The only opposition I have gotten to my paper thus far has been from a friend who, after hearing the very long summary of my paper (that has gotten shorter...but still long) he asked, "But isn't that confusing? Won't it confuse the lay people?" His appeal was that the simple adoption of vicarious atonement, Christus Victor, Ransom theory, etc. was simple, and the cross is simple. "Christ crucified" is what we must continue to teach. His warning was, "Do not confuse people with the cross." I do not agree with him on his main point, but all the same I agree with his concern about confusing people. I do not want to put up any obstacles between anyone and the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, Who gave Himself up as a propitiation for our sins and has, in His flesh and by His blood, reconciled man to God, that He might be both the Just and Justifier of man. Yet, I do not want to neglect the deep (meaty) teachings of Scripture; I want to actually bring the truth to them and lead them further, not just ignore the depth, but bring the depth to them (which requires preparation, proper presentation, contextual sensitivity, etc.). My simple point is that we should neither ignore nor confound the Scriptural teaching of the cross.
Oh, two more things:
1. I am then led to the question: does this teaching affect how I take communion? How should I think about this sacrament? While partaking of the bread and blood last night this question came to me. I found that the songs and prayers sung and spoken by the leaders and congregation at Grace included all the facets I mentioned in my paper...and probably more than I have seen.
2. Ephesians 2:13-17 and Colossians 2:13-15 offer an additional facet that has not yet been explicitly addressed. Think about it.
--
In Don Rags Dr. Sanders brought up my paper in the context of modern theology. Turns out that my thesis is a relatively new position that is presently being adopted and developed in the scholarly world. Sanders stated, "I don't know how you are tuned into this movement, since you are reading the classics, but this is the modern orthodox trend." Scholars are finding narrow views of the cross to be unsatisfying and unfaithful to the biblical witness.
--
This brings me to the point of this post. During office hours, Dr. Sanders asked me, after we talked about my paper, "What now? So you made your argument and strongly supported your claims with Scripture. But what now?" To be honest, I was not sure how to answer him, so I didn't say much.
At Don Rags he brought the question up again and voiced his concern in regards to this new approach to the cross in studying the atonement. He said that he was worried that Christians might loose specificity when thinking about the cross. Before, Christians would think about the cross in singular terms i.e. "Jesus paid my debt," and so the cross was clear to them and this singular clarity served to focus their thoughts on the topic.
But the adoption of a multi-faceted conception of the cross has the potential of encouraging a "its just a mystery" mentality that leaves the cross as a vague, undefined event. This broad perspective can lead to imprecise thinking about the cross, till the atonement becomes something that God did that one time that did something for me in some way that some how accomplished God's redemptive purpose. Quickly it becomes something (whatever it is) that we just can't explain in any way, since it is too great, too "multi-faceted." This is often the result of intellectual laziness--it’s like taking a book, removing all the paragraphs, and keeping the chapter headings because who is going to understand the paragraphs anyways? This redaction forebodes significant loss.
When we lose all the details we fail to see what Christ has done on the cross. By acknowledging more details of the atonement revealed in Scripture we are, in a strange way, in danger of loosing it as we find it--we are in danger of not knowing it by way of understanding it.
I find this warning pretty apt after this last semester of Torrey. So much theology and mysticism was thrown at me that it all became unspecific ramblings about something that is supposedly true. This is a terrible trap to fall into, but worse to fall into it and not realize it. (Lord, in Thy light do we see light, I thank Thee that Thou dost reveal our faults unto us and continue to reveal our vices that sow death, and would lead to death if not for Thy protection, sovereign guidance, and redemption in Christ Jesus. Glory to God in the Highest, Glory to God!)
I thought that this was helpful advice and an interesting report on the state of modern atonement studies.
--
In closing:
The only opposition I have gotten to my paper thus far has been from a friend who, after hearing the very long summary of my paper (that has gotten shorter...but still long) he asked, "But isn't that confusing? Won't it confuse the lay people?" His appeal was that the simple adoption of vicarious atonement, Christus Victor, Ransom theory, etc. was simple, and the cross is simple. "Christ crucified" is what we must continue to teach. His warning was, "Do not confuse people with the cross." I do not agree with him on his main point, but all the same I agree with his concern about confusing people. I do not want to put up any obstacles between anyone and the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, Who gave Himself up as a propitiation for our sins and has, in His flesh and by His blood, reconciled man to God, that He might be both the Just and Justifier of man. Yet, I do not want to neglect the deep (meaty) teachings of Scripture; I want to actually bring the truth to them and lead them further, not just ignore the depth, but bring the depth to them (which requires preparation, proper presentation, contextual sensitivity, etc.). My simple point is that we should neither ignore nor confound the Scriptural teaching of the cross.
Oh, two more things:
1. I am then led to the question: does this teaching affect how I take communion? How should I think about this sacrament? While partaking of the bread and blood last night this question came to me. I found that the songs and prayers sung and spoken by the leaders and congregation at Grace included all the facets I mentioned in my paper...and probably more than I have seen.
2. Ephesians 2:13-17 and Colossians 2:13-15 offer an additional facet that has not yet been explicitly addressed. Think about it.
Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! "For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?" "Or who has given a gift to him that he might be repaid?" For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen. (Rom 11:33-36)(I am less concerned about editing and hopefully this casualness will lead to more posts... God Bless)
3 Comments:
Also, sorry for using the word "trend." It can have bad connotations.
"I am less concerned about editing and hopefully this casualness will lead to more posts..."
I concur; maybe I should adopt the same strategy... maybe I should also read your paper...
interesting thoughts. I completely understand and agree with the problem of intellectual laziness leading to ambiguity within the context of understanding the cross, but if the many facets are well explained, I actually don't see how that would be confusing. Especially if special consideration is given to showing how the many parts of the cross address the many parts of sin. Since the injury against God through sin has many aspects and facets, it makes sense that the solution to that injury must address many facets as well.
It seems that one could draw a connection between each aspect of the atonement and attach it to a part of sin...for example, in our sin we have created a list of offenses against God that legally [because we have broken his law] condemns us. Thus, the cross canceled the record of debt by paying that in our place [using the Colossians passage you pointed out]. I don't know how helpful that is, but it struck me just now. Do you think the connection works???
Post a Comment
<< Home