At this point in our discussion regarding Christus Exemplar it is necessary that we put everything into perspective. Being that very few have taken upon themselves lay out a Reformed argument for Christus Exemplar, this historical sketch will be short, sweet, and very basic. A major problem with tracing the historical development of this doctrine is that most have abused it. The doctrine has been hijacked by theological liberals who argue that the death of Christ was primarily a moral example by which those who "embrace the message of Jesus" (which usually means love and compassion without justice and holiness) should follow.That is not the true doctrine. Read the New Testament and one cannot separate propitiation and Christus Exemplar. And yet those oftentimes associated with the doctrine reject penal substitution. This needs to change. Reformed believers need to be ready to articulate, defend, and promote the doctrine of Christus Exemplar especially when it comes to issues of suffering.
Our historical survey must begin with the New Testament. And we must begin with Jesus Christ. Is it too elementary to say that we are called to mimic Jesus Christ in our lives? The gospel itself demands holiness and the only way we can be holy is through the gospel. We must be renewed and regenerated through the cross and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Repentance demands perfect obedience to Christ. Therefore, Christus Exemplar, when properly understood, is impossible apart from regeneration through the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Christians throughout the centuries have studied Christ. There are more books about Jesus than any other historical character. And for good reason. Take Jesus' prayer in Gethsemane for example. How many Christians find themselves on their faces in prayer seeking God's intervention. How many cancer patients or children in broken homes pray for God to change things? In the Garden we see our Savior suffering and suffering well. The Garden narrative reminds us that God hears our prayers (cf. Romans 8) and His answer is based on His good will. Thus, like Jesus, we should always pray, "not my will, but Yours be done."
The cancer patient, the struggling patient, the dying man find themselves suffering like Christ. And like Christ, they too are called to follow His example and submit to the will of God.
But the meat of Christus Exemplar is found on the cross who according to Peter, though He was reviled He did not revile back, etc. When we speak about following the example of Christ, we primarily speak about suffering well. The book of Acts describes Christians were joyful that they got to suffer as Christ. The Epistles exhort believers to suffer well, just like Christ.
This tradition continues throughout the early Church. Though none looked for persecution, many longed for it. Not because they wanted to suffer for suffering sake but because they wanted to suffer for Christ as Christ had suffered for them. Ignatius, for example, is known for the 7 letters he wrote on his way to be martyred. Though other believers in Rome believed they could have spared his life, Ignatius refused because he wanted to suffer for Christ as Christ had suffered for him.
The very growth of the Christian Church during the age of Roman persecution gives story after story of Christians, under horrendous persecution, persevered through it looking to Christ as their example to follow. They, like Christ, did not revile in return, but submitted to the will of the executioner because that is what Christ did. The early Church was poor and always on the run, and yet they exploded. Conversions where frequent because of the Christians authenticity and willingness to have the Spirit of Christ even while suffering. Nothing can explain this except for regenerate souls looking to Christ, the author and finisher of their faith, who endured His cross, so as to show us how to endure ours (see Hebrews 12:1ff.).
But it isn't until the 12th century that Christus Exemplar is hijacked by unorthodox believers. Peter Abelard (1092-1142). Abelard wrote a commentary on Paul's Epistle to the Romans in which he laid out his argument for the moral theory of the atonement. He was then brought up on charges of which he's books were burned and banned from writing again at the Council of Sens in 1141.
In response to the Abelard heresy, Bernard of Clairvaux showed that if the cross was only for us to follow the example of Christ, then the work of salvation remains in the hands of the sinner. In other words, Abelards understanding of the gospel is based on works righteousness.
This unorthodox understanding of Christus Exemplar remained dormant for another 400 years until Fausto Sozzini (or Socinus, 1539-1604) resurrected the doctrine. Sozzini's followers were known as Socinianism and were heirs of both Arianism and Abelard. They rejected original sin, penal substitution predestination, sola fida, and all other orthodox and Reformed doctrines.
The Socinianists were confronted by Hugo Grotius, a Dutch jurist and Christian apologists. The problems that the Socinians ran into where the same as the Arians of old and Abelard. Their doctrine was unorthodox and heretical. The problem with both Abelard and the Socinians is not that they saw Christ as a perfect example by which to follow, but that they undermined penal substitution. Whenever one rejects substitution, all that is left is the moral influence theory of the atonement; a works righteosness approach to salvation.
Later, German theologian Fredrick Schleiermacher picked up the moral influence theory of the cross and applied it to theological liberalism. Schleiermacher sought to update the gospel in order to make it more relevant to the rise of modernity. Out was language of a blood cross that appease the righteous wrath of a holy God. Instead, Schleiermacher emphasized a works righteousness that continues to this day in liberal circles.
Today, perhaps the leaders promoting the moral influence heresy would be postmodern liberals especially those in the Emergent Church. Consider some of the following quotes:
“Many Christians advance the idea that Jesus’ death was a way by which God satisfied God’s own need for a punishment that could atone for the sins of the world and perpetuate the idea that God’s willingness to punish Jesus on our behalf is what reveals God’s love to us. The problem with this is that it leads to an overemphasis on putting faith in a God who loves us so much he is willing to sacrifice his son, and it can reinforce a caricature of a God who is angry, bloodthirsty, and judgmental. To balance this view, we need to act out in faith, living the way Jesus lived and standing up for the things he stood up for. What counts is not a belief system but a holistic approach of following what you feel, experience, discover, and believe; it is a willingness to join Jesus in his vision for a transformed humanity.” -Burke and Taylor, A Heretics Guide to Eternity, 131
“Some people today may find it compelling that some Great Cosmic Transaction took place on that day 1,980 years ago, that God’s wrath burned against his son instead of against me. I find that version of atonement theory neither intellectually compelling, spiritually compelling, nor in keeping with the biblical narrative.
Instead, Jesus death offers life because in Christianity, and in Christianity alone, the God and Creator of the universe deigned to become human, to be tempted, to reach out to those who had been de-humanized and restore their humanity, and ultimately to die in solidarity with every one of us. Yes, he was a sacrifice. Yes, he was ‘sinless.’ But thank God, Jesus was also human.
The hope he offers is that, by dying on that cross, the eternal Trinity became forever bound to my humanity. The God of the universe identified with me, and I have the opportunity to identify with him.
Today, and everyday, I hang with him on that cross." -Tony Jones, Why Jesus Died. (Grant it, this isn't exactly the moral influence theory of the atonement as traditionally laid out, but one can see the correlations.)
We live in metaphors . . . The tomb is empty because we have met the risen Christ – we have experienced Jesus in a way that transcends space and time. And this gives us hope." -Rob Bell, Velvet Elvis, 61
"By becoming vulnerable on the cross, by accepting suffering from everyone, Jews and Romans alike, rather than visiting suffering on everyone, Jesus is showing God’s loving heart, which wants forgiveness, not revenge, for everyone. Jesus shows us that the wisdom of God’s kingdom is sacrifice, not violence. It’s about accepting suffering and transforming it into reconciliation not avenging suffering through retaliation . . . The cross shows God’s rejection of the human violence and dominance and oppression that have spun the world in a cycle of crisis from the story of Cain and Abel through the headlines in this morning’s Washington Post. I don’t know . . . this theory might be nonsense, but maybe there’s a grain of truth in it. The cross calls humanity to stop trying to make God’s kingdom happen through coercion and force, which are always self-defeating in the end, and instead, to welcome it through self-sacrifice and vulnerability.” McLaren, The Story We Find Ourselves In, 105-106.
These examples will do for now. One can see the trajectory. The Emerging Church and postmodern liberals have rejected penal substitution labeling it as a vile doctrine. As a result, they are left with universalism and an unorthodox understanding Christus Exemplar. Without a fundamental believe in propitiation, one cannot have a correct belief in Christus Exemplar. To reject penal substitution is to turn the wonderful doctrine of Christus Exemplar into works righteousness.
No wonder so many Reformed believers rarely speak of Christus Exemplar and when they do it is always in reference to liberals and unorthodoxy. The question, then, must be asked, will we sweep certain doctrines under the rug because unorthodoxy Christians and liberals have abused it or will we correct false doctrine in order to return the glory to God? Christus Exemplar has been hijacked for 18 centuries. Will we recover it and use it to the glory of God like the Early Church or will we remain passive and ignore it as unimportant and unneeded?
0 comments:
Post a Comment