What is it about the view of atonement in the Chronicles of Narnia that I love so much? Well I’m glad you asked because that is the very thought that I was having. I’d like to lay out my thoughts on that very subject.
I) It was done for others.
I’m not sure that I dislike any theology more than one that says that Christ died solely for his own glory and for the glory of the father. Yes God was glorified through the resurrection, but man give me a break. “For God so loved the world …” and other various proof-texting verses can be spewed forth here, but instead I’m only going to say God died for me. And you, and everything other sinner a.k.a. human who needed to be redeemed from sin. If he wanted only to show his glory I’m sure he could have come up with something better.
II) It was fully redeeming
Edmond didn’t go “Oh thanks, but I’d really like to dabble in the White Witches stuff for a little longer.” No way man. He was redeemed, and because of that he was going to live as a king of Narnia, because that’s what he was. How exciting is that?? Man’s sin is not more powerful than the cross. The choices of man in The Garden of Eden could be undone by the decisions made in The Garden of Gethsemane. We don’t have to wallow around in the winter any longer (enter joke about cold weather being evil and Dante being correct that Hell is ice not fire) cause When Aslan comes upon the scene CHANGE IS MADE!!
III) It was out of love!!
There was no wrath of a higher power that needed to be satisfied, it was only the law of the deep magic. Aslan willingly gave his life because the deep magic said a traitor would be paid for with blood (one of my favorite lines in the movie and second only to “He’s not tame but he’s good” is “Don’t quote the deep magic to me, I was there when it was written”). The Wrath of God really starts showing up in Anselm’s writing, the early church had this great view of Jesus dying because Satan owned the rights to us, but in the end Satan was tricked. Jesus was the bait on the hook and Satan took it and lost. FANTASTIC. Is it an incomplete view … yeah a little … however it’s more orthodox than “God was ticked off at the world, and Jesus said ‘Father I’ll take your wrath for them.’” Saying that pits one person of the trinity against the other. I prefer the conversation to go something like this.
“Son, Our children down there are lost, and you and I both know the only way to save them is for US to become like them and to die.”
“Yeah Dad, I know, and I’m willing to make that sacrifice”
“It’s going to be hard Son … you will be separated from us to an extent you haven’t experienced before and you will have to empty yourself and assume all that they are, for that which is not assumed is not redeemed.”
“Yeah I know Dad … But I think it’s worth it, and with your help, and the Spirits help, I know we will turn this world around.”
That may have some flaws with it, and I’m sure you guys will point them out … but for the moment … it excites me.
Thanks be to God for pursuing me with love.
Labels: Theology
posted by Aaron at
9:35 PM
8 Comments:
His "ever pursuing love" stated by Mike Cline recently in his latest sermon at Heritage Memorial Church
By
Mike Cline, at 6:59 AM
Loved the movie for those reasons alone! I think that Lewis' picture of God-through Aslan-may be the best image in literature.
By
dan, at 11:37 AM
You said "you will have to empty yourself and assume all that they are" How far are you willing to take that?? Do you really believe that he emptied all of his divinity and assumed EVERYTHING such as our sin nature?
By
Anonymous, at 1:15 PM
I don't know how much divinity Jesus emptied out... a lot... your thoughts?? And yes I think he took our sinful nature upon himself. That which is not assumed is not redeamed.
By
Aaron, at 9:02 PM
The Cappadocian Fathers actually did not mean that Jesus inherited the sin nature. In fact, the Eastern Fathers conceive of sin quite differently than we do in the West. For them, the importance of "the unassumed is unhealed" was related more to both the death and resurrection of Christ.
Although I too have a tendency toward peccability, I remain conflicted. Both the West and the East have not acknowledged the assumption of the sin nature in the person of Christ because they view the subject of the incarnation as being the person of the Word. It is not that a divine person and a human person unite in Christ, but that the eternal person of the Word unites himself with human nature. Now I'm just rambling...
Miss you Duvall.
By
Ben Robinson, at 4:41 PM
My understanding is the father was speaking of Jesus dying when he was 80. So it seems to have more to do with the incarnation and what was assumed in it.
On to the theadric union...I think I'll post my chapter on it and see what you guys think.
By
Aaron, at 7:18 PM
Perhaps we're simply thinking along two different lines. However, "the unassumed is unhealed" was first coined by Athanasius and developed by the Cappadocians. The idea that Jesus lived until he was 80 in order to redeem humanity at all stages of life, was proposed by Ireneaus. His atonement theory of recapitulation found its way logically to assume Jesus must have lived to be an elderly man in order to redeem old men/women. I really like Ireneaus' understanding but I don't think it needs to be taken to the extreme that he does.
However, I'm going to have to re-take a look at the way Athanasius uses the phrase to see where his emphasis lies.
By
Ben Robinson, at 10:23 AM
I do think we were thinking of two different groups however I feel that we were both on the same track of thinking!
There is something to Christ taking our nature (not to give away my hand but maybe by "emptying himself" of whatever it was he had *the spirit maybe* he became like us in that way?)
By
Aaron, at 11:32 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home