| Popis: |
This article discusses the interpretation of the Christian doctrine of atonement which is usually called the ‘moral influence’ theory. A close analysis will suggest that this theory is better called ‘persuasive love’, since the revelation of God’s love in the death of Christ is central to this approach to reconciliation between God and human beings. The idea has taken different forms over the years since the medieval theologian Peter Abelard (1079–1142) first clearly articulated it. Versions that lay stress on the subjective aspect maintain that a supreme example of love calls for imitation by those who see it, while more objective versions insist that divine love has the power actually to create a responsive love in human persons. Discussion of the theory is thus often confused by a failure to explore what ‘influence’ or ‘persuasion’ might mean, and ‘moral influence’ is often reduced – either by exponents or critics – to the prompting of an imitation of the moral character of Christ by those who behold the self-giving of Christ on the cross. This is open to the criticism that human beings, sinful as they are, do not possess the moral capacity to imitate Christ until they have been transformed by a divine act of redemption. Even accounts of atonement that set out a process of persuasive love which is more than example have, however, been subject to the criticism that these are liable to encourage abuse of the powerless, a passivity that cannot overcome evil, and an individualism that does not address structural sin in society. These critiques can only be answered when the power of love is properly understood as the work of a God who protests against suffering. Moreover, the objectivity of persuasive love is most clearly seen when it is placed in the context of a Christology where the pattern of Christ’s love is identified with the patterns of love in the triune God. |
