TAG: Doctrine

Reviving the Church’s Imagination: A Review of Kevin Vanhoozer’s “Pictures at a Theological Exhibition”

pictures at a theological exhibitionIn the eyes of a fair number of Christians today, the imagination doesn’t seem to count for very much—or at least that’s how Kevin Vanhoozer describes things in the introduction to his new essay collection Pictures at a Theological ExhibitionHe believes that many evangelicals unfortunately view the imagination essentially as “a factory for producing images of things that are not there” (p.18). “Maybe it’s important for telling good stories at night or writing gripping novels, but it’s not that important for theology,” they might say.

When the imagination isn’t considered theologically useful, it seems like the value of analytic activities like systematic theology tend to get over-emphasized while artistic expressions like poetry get marginalized. For Vanhoozer, though, both systematic theology and poetry have important roles to play in the Christian life. He writes, “We need both the clarity of crisp concepts and the intricacy of lush metaphors in order to get sound, life-giving doctrine” (p.13). His overall indictment is that many contemporary believers don’t think having a developed biblical imagination matters. In a world where “many Christians are [simultaneously] suffering from malnourished imaginations, captive to culturally conditioned pictures of the good life,” this is a sadly ironic state of affairs (p.20).

A Non-Violent Reading of Anselm’s Atonement Theology

“Anselm understood Jesus’ death as the debt payment that satisfied the honor of God, and thus restored balance and order in the universe….  Maintaining order in the universe depends on maintaining the honor of God, which necessitates a debt payment – the death of Jesus – to cover the offense to God’s honor that was enacted by human sin…  Although Anselm’s understanding of satisfaction atonement differs significantly from penal substitutionary atonement, I have treated them together as two versions of atonement that depict a divine need for Jesus’ death and that thus direct the death of Jesus Godward.  Although in different ways, each depends on retribution.  The conclusion is inescapable that any and all versions of satisfaction atonement, regardless of their packaging, assume the violence of retribution or justice based on punishment, and depend on God-induced and God-directed violence.”1J. Denny Weaver, “Narrative Christus Victor: The Answer to Anselmian Atonement Violence”, Atonement and Violence: A Theological Conversation, ed. John Sanders, (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2006), 8-9.  Author’s emphasis.

The above passage indicates how Anselm is predominantly interpreted in atonement debates.  It is also widely acknowledged that the language of Anselm’s so-called “satisfaction theory of atonement” influenced later theologians to eventually articulate penal substitutionary atonement, which explains why some argue that Anselm’s atonement theology is directly related to penal substitution.2Note the language of Weaver in the above passage: “…I have treated them [Anselm’s satisfaction atonement and penal substitutionary atonement] together as two versions of atonement that depict a divine need for Jesus’ death…”.  Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Vol. 4, Reformation of Church and Dogma (1300-1700) (Chicago, IL: University Of Chicago Press, 1985), 24-26. Many assert that Anselm incorporated the language of the feudal system of his day, which led to a distorted idea of atonement: God is a feudal lord whose honor is offended and demands satisfaction through the form of violent punishment. Furthermore, the only one who can fully satisfy the infinitely offended God is the infinite God in human form, Jesus Christ.3J. Denny Weaver, The Nonviolent Atonement, 2nd Ed., (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 2011), 236-237.

References   [ + ]

1. J. Denny Weaver, “Narrative Christus Victor: The Answer to Anselmian Atonement Violence”, Atonement and Violence: A Theological Conversation, ed. John Sanders, (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2006), 8-9.  Author’s emphasis.
2. Note the language of Weaver in the above passage: “…I have treated them [Anselm’s satisfaction atonement and penal substitutionary atonement] together as two versions of atonement that depict a divine need for Jesus’ death…”.  Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Vol. 4, Reformation of Church and Dogma (1300-1700) (Chicago, IL: University Of Chicago Press, 1985), 24-26.
3. J. Denny Weaver, The Nonviolent Atonement, 2nd Ed., (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 2011), 236-237.

From the Archives: 4 Reasons the Trinity is Essential to Christian Belief

The Trinity is often identified as a divisive Christian doctrine. Some see it as needless or unimportant in the grand scheme of faith. Some see it as illogical and/or unbiblical. I’m going to say from the beginning of this essay… I think the Trinity is not only essential to the Christian faith, it is foundational to our very paradigm of God and every other doctrine of the Christian faith is affected by how much we consider the Trinity behind the processing of that particular doctrine. I’m not going to attempt to untangle the Trinity as a doctrine or demonstrate why it’s “biblical.”1I’d rather let more educated people do that for me (such as my pal Kenneth Myers in his book The Trinity Untangled Rather, what I’d like to do is show you four reasons the Trinity affects our paradigm of the world and God as Christians.

References   [ + ]

1. I’d rather let more educated people do that for me (such as my pal Kenneth Myers in his book The Trinity Untangled
There are no more results.