Mark Galli’s column in Christianity Today this afternoon is titled “The Problem With Christus Victor.” To his credit, he acknowledges that the substitutionary atonement model can be presented in incorrect ways and that Christus Victor is also a Biblical model. But his conclusion, it seems to me, is odd, to say the least:
Here, I’m simply suggesting that Christus Victor may not be a theory that Protestants, and evangelicals in particular, should tie their wagons to. While it brings to the fore some crucial and forgotten biblical truths, it’s clearly a secondary atonement theme in the New Testament. And at least for today’s Protestants, it has an uncanny tendency to downplay a sense of personal responsibility, which in the end, sabotages grace. In my view, more than ever in our day, we need Christus Vicarious.
Sigh.
Christus Victor is a “secondary atonment theme in the New Testament?” I don’t read it that way at all! From Matthew to Revelation a central theme of the New Testament, perhaps the central theme against its cultural background, is the victory of Jesus Christ over the powers of sin, death, and empire.
Now, Galli might be correct that if we collect specific proof texts that deal specifically with the cross, the preponderance talk about substitution. And he is certainly correct that Christus Victor should not be advanced “at the expense of” substitution. But the suggestion that any one facet of the atonement is a “minor theme” or that protestants or evangelicals should emphasize any one theme over another is not helpful.
Worse, Galli makes no effort at theological discernment beyond this half-hearted weighing of proof texts. How did the Fathers understand the atonement? What themes have been important in the history of the Church universal? Are there theologians working today who are synthesizing Christus Victor, substition, and other atonement models? Galli doesn’t say. (The early Fathers emphasized Christus Victory heavily; Anselm’s version of penal substition is important but comes later; see, e.g., Hans Boersma’s Violence, Hospitality and the Cross: Reappropriating the Atonement Tradition).
Worse yet, Galli casts this as a peculiar question for “protestants” and “evangelicals” (whatever that latter term means nowadays). Why should anyone care about these silos anymore? Break them down and let’s understand once again that “Christus Victor” and “penal substitution” are just human terms for grasping at complementary aspects of the cosmic mystery of the cross.