Tuesday, December 31, 2019

Christ among the tyrants

Gustaf Aulén as Bishop of Strängnäs 

Gustaf Aulén was a prominent Swedish Lutheran theologian, who eventually became Bishop of Strängnäs. The English-language “Christus Victor” is his most well known work. It was originally published in 1931 and is a hybrid between theological tract and historical study.

Aulén criticizes the two most widespread views of the Atonement, the “objective” satisfaction theory associated with both medieval Catholic Anselm of Canterbury and Lutheran orthodoxy, and the “subjective” view typical of liberal Protestantism. What both have in common is that they are man-centered. Aulén believes that the classical view of the Atonement was different from both. 

He associates the classical view with most of the Church Fathers, in particular the Eastern Fathers, but also the New Testament writers, Paul in particular. This view is God-centered, God being both the Reconciler and the Reconciled. God enters the world in order to fight the evil demonic powers which keep humans in bondage. The Incarnation, the miracles and the crucifixion are part of the same struggle, which ends in God´s victory over sin, death and the devil. The culmination of the struggle is the resurrection. At no point does God demand “satisfaction” from man (or from Christ´s human side). Man seems to be wholly passive in the drama, God and the demonic “tyrants” being the only actors. The perspective is dualistic, in that God and the Devil are seen as almost equal powers fighting over the rightful possession of man (ultimately, of course, God stands above the Devil).

Aulén admits that the classical view had some aspects which may seem weird or even repugnant to modern Christians. For instance, Jesus was often seen as a ransom *paid to the Devil* rather than a sacrifice offered up to God. By offering himself as a substitute for man, Jesus freed humanity from the Devil´s bondage, while simultaneously cheating the Devil, who didn´t know that Jesus was really God and could therefore escape his clutches (and destroy the Devil´s dominion). If this sounds familiar, it should – C S Lewis used these notions as the basis for his children story “The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe”. 

Aulén doesn´t seem to take this colorful language literally, but rather as symbolic descriptions of a mystical reality. Above all, he emphasizes that the Atonement cannot be thought about in rational terms – something Anselm and the Scholastics attempted to do. On Aulén´s interpretation, Martin Luther had the classical view of the Atonement, while later Lutheran theologians (beginning with Luther´s collaborator Melanchthon) once again tried to rationalize it. I assume Aulén preferred the classical view since it emphasizes that the Atonement is wholly an act of grace from God´s side – salvation really is “by grace alone”, whereas the Catholic view gives more leeway to a human-created penitential system. Lutheran orthodoxy is, to Aulén, the most absurd system, being essentially the Catholic system without the penances!

Another interesting point in Aulén´s exegesis is that the Law is one of the “tyrants” from which Christ sets men free, alongside sin, death and the Devil. Not only is the Law incapable of freeing men from sin, it actively leads them away from such a possibility, being a negative force in its own right. This is obviously Aulén´s criticism of legalism, although he never mentions what specific groups he is attacking – something tells me it isn´t Jews or Catholics (tiny minorities in Sweden in 1931). 

One thing that struck me when reading the book is that the classical view of the Atonement as exegeted by Aulén presupposes a view of the world as very radically evil and incapable of change. The world in a sense does legitimately belong to Satan and his host of “powers” and “principalities”. Humans have been snatched away from God´s realm through deceit and are now Satan´s property. From a certain perspective, even God is incapable of simply setting things right by fiat – he must incarnate in the evil world and gradually defeat the “tyrants” one by one, even to the point of suffering and dying. While main-line Christianity wasn´t officially dualist, it´s nevertheless obvious how such a view can morph into Zoroastrian-like dualism or Gnosticism. Even Aulén calls it “dualistic”. In a certain sense, God incarnates in a world which really isn´t his…

According to the all-knowing Wikipedia, the fate of “Christus Victor” is an interesting one. The book seems to have inspired both “Paleo-orthodox” Protestants (who I assume are theologically conservative) and various pacifist and politically left-wing versions of Christianity. Since Aulén places so much emphasis on the Eastern Fathers, his work can probably be read with some profit by Eastern Orthodox believers, as well. The leftists, by contrast, like the idea of Christ fighting the powers of evil and eventually being executed by them – only to triumph in the end. Here, the “tyrants” are interpreted naturalistically, as actual earthly powers oppressing the weak.

With that, I end my review…and my reflections.

6 comments:

  1. Han verkar både sympatisk och intressant.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ja, han låter inte som en galen fanatiker. Lite lustigt att han tolkar Luther av alla personer "till det bästa". Välkommen tillbaka, förresten. Har du lagat datorn?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Det jag gillar med Auléns bok är att han inte verkar känna sig bunden av något dogmatiskt system, varken konservativt eller liberalt. Han försöker så gott det nu går att utforska kyrkofäderna på deras egna villkor. Sedan blir han ju lite skrämd av deras mer knasiga idéer ("Jesus var ett offer till Satan") men istället för att förkasta dem försöker han förstå den andliga dimensionen bakom det tänkandet. Han förstår också att Luther var något av en vildman och verkar även här tycka att Luther faktiskt *menade* något med sitt extrema språk, det var inte bara ren retorik anpassad till pöbeln. Sedan kan man ju tycka att Aulén har fel när han (om jag tolkat honom rätt) menar att bildspråket trots allt inte ska tolkas bokstavligt - men tänk om t.ex. Origenes faktiskt ansåg att Jesus var ett offer till Djävulen?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Jag har köpt en ny dator, i Borås. Den Mac-butik jag besökte i Stockholm hade ingen laptop alls bara Ipad och sånt!

    "Teorin" att Jesus var ett offer till Satan var i alla all lite logisk. Att han måste offras till Gud Fader för att denne var så vred och skulden så oändlig, så att offra sin "son" var det enda alternativet till att offra alla människor är ju helt snurrig.

    Och borde inte människans skuld bli än mer oändlig om människorna förutom alt annat ont också torterar ihjäl Guds son?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Precis. En annan mer sympatisk teori är att Jesus offrade sig helt enkelt för att visa Guds kärlek för de syndiga människorna - Gud är så nådig att han t.o.m. är beredd att göra detta.

    En sak jag glömde ta upp i recensionen var att Aulén påpekar att Biblen blir obegriplig på en punkt om man antar att korsfästelsen var satisfaktionen för våra synder. *Jesus förlåter syndare redan innan korsfästelsen*. Men hur kan han göra det om Gud *måste* ha ett blodigt människo-offer för att kunna förlåta våra synder? Det kan han inte...

    Det blir mer logiskt om man antar att hela Jesu liv, död och uppståndelse tillsammans var "försoningen". Både hans förlåtande av synder innan korsfästelsen, och själva korsfästelsen, var då delar av samma kamp mot demonerna...

    ReplyDelete
  6. Det här är den enda bloggen där man kan diskutera Kristi försoning på nyårsnatten... ;-)

    ReplyDelete