Is there a gap in Christus Victor?

Can it be filled with a comic-booky mechanism? A brief correspondence with Greg Boyd

December 16, 2008:

Dear Greg,

I've read everything you've posted online about the Christus Victor view of the Atonement, and I'm still left wondering: How does Jesus “voluntarily experiencing the full force of the rebel kingdom we have all allowed to reign on the earth,” as you put it, actually “save us, [...] br[eak] open the gates of hell, destroy the power of sin, erase the law that stood against us, and thereby free us to receive the Holy Spirit and walk in right relatedness with God”? I understand what you’re saying, but there’s still a gaping disconnect for me. How does Jesus’ submitting to the powers bring about all the things you assert are their natural consequences (i.e., atone for our sin)? At least with the Penal Substitution, there is a definite and obvious connection between the Jesus' death and our reconciliation to God. Such natural lines between action and consequence are erased (for me) in the CV model. There is no clear cause and effect, or at least, the mechanism of how cause leads to effect escapes me.

I understand that due to the volume of incoming messages to you, you might not reply.  I don't mind that at all; I just wanted to tell you in hopes that at some point you'll address this in an essay or blog entry.

Thanks much,
Scott

December 17:

Hi Scott,

You raise an excellent question, and you worded it well too. It’s true that the Penal Substitution can offer a cause-effect mechanism that the CV atonement usually lacks. But the mechanism of the Penal view is, in my opinion, an argument against it and leaves us with more mystery than before we had the “explanation” (at least if the mechanism is taken to be placating the Father's wrath so now he can accept us). Whenever advocates of CV atonement have gone beyond sheer DESCRIPTION to explore HOW it occurred, they’ve fallen into silliness (like the “fish hook” theory and “deception” theory that was dominant in the early church and that eventually contributed to Anselm proposing a more plausible explanation). I am for the most part content, therefore, to simply report that love overcomes evil, light extinguishes darkness—so God’s ultimate act of love conquers Satan.

Having said that, I DO believe we MIGHT be able to do better…exploring, for example, HOW the devil had us in bondage and HOW the explosion of love on Calvary frees us. Also, I think there’s more to be said about why our sin and bondage to Satan required—metaphysically—Christ to die. And I suspect it’s possible to flesh out these without falling into the silliness of “fish hook” and “deception” language.

All this I think is possible–but I’m not there yet. I’m working on it…slowly…

So, for the time being, I’m resting content with mere description. And it’s to your lasting credit that you noticed this.

Peace,

Greg

January 2, 2009

Dear Greg,

Thanks for your reply; it’s an honor to exchange correspondence with you. I’m with you: I’m content with a Christus Victor understanding of the Atonement—mostly because I think we’re on the right track—but I agree we might be able to do better. In fact, I hope to do better soon, because I’m finding that a dearth of valid soteriological understanding is sapping the vitality of the faith of many of my friends.

I may have made some progress over the past couple days in the wake of a New Year’s Eve discussion of the problem of eternal conscious torment and in preparation for wanting to write you back. I’m not the most fluent writer, however, so I’ll send you those thoughts once I can get them to coalesce on paper in my journal first.

May progress on debunking the blueprint worldview proceed swimmingly for you, and may you prosper in every way in 2009.

Peace,

Scott

later on January 2

Thanks Scott. I look forward to getting your reflections on CV atonement. One of the projects I’d like to get done before I die is a full-fledged book on Christus Victor, trying to demonstrate how it a) is the most fundamental model of the atonement in the NT; b) how it encompasses all the other models, while avoiding some of their problematic features; and c) how it is practically the most advantageous. But that is at least 4 or 5 years away (after I finish my two-volume Myth of the Blueprint). In any event, you’ve definitely zeroed in on the weak link in the theory, so I strongly encourage you to apply yourself passionately to it.

Blessings

November 7, 2010

Dear Greg,

I’m writing very quickly to resume a short correspondence you and I had almost two years ago: I’d like to suggest that Jesus defeated his enemies, “destroye[d] the power of sin, and erase[d] the law that stood against us” by literally taking them all with him into His death and leaving them behind upon His resurrection. 

It makes sense that if “in Him all things hold together” (Colossians 1:17; see also Romans 11:36, 1 Corinthians 8:6, Hebrews 2:10), then if He dies, by nature He takes everything with Him. I haven’t developed the thought much further than this, as it really just hit me, but looking forward, it seems like it ties a lot of things together.

Incidentally, I just realized this is a view that Gene Edwards espouses in The Divine Romance, a beautiful narrative re-telling of the story of the Cross and Resurrection.

Any initial thoughts in reply?

Much love,

Scott Stilson

November 8

Well, you may be onto something…but a lot of work would need to be done to connect Christ’s role as Word “holding all things together” with his taking sin and the law to the grave. If Christ holds all things together (which He does) and if He “took everything with him” when he died, wouldn’t the cosmos disappear? Just wondering.

Don’t know Gene Edwards’ work.

Keep thinking!

GB

later on November 8

It’s funny: You bring up the first objection my wife brought up. My response…well, there’d have to be time bending involved. It’s very comic-booky. But it fits into a “Kingdom come, Kingdom not yet come” motif that I see for many parts of Christ’s supremacy in the New Testament.

Besides that, I don't know that it’s necessary for the “holding all things together” bit to be in play here. God could have simply in some way literally taken death, our sin, the Law—plus you and me, of course—put them in Jesus, and crucified them all.

Again, it’s comic-booky. But I like it.

Anyway, it’s crazy to me that you don’t know me and yet you typically reply to my emails very quickly. It’s honoring. Thank you.

– SS