What is Catalyst?
Four issues of Catalyst are mailed each academic year to some 5,000 UM theological students in more than 100 seminaries in the U.S.A.

AFTE
Catalyst is a project of A Foundation for Theological Education (AFTE).

What is the John Wesley Fellowship Program?
Each year AFTE awards up to five John Wesley Fellowships to assist gifted United Methodists in their doctoral studies at the finest universities.

Back Issues
Several back issues of Catalyst are now available on-line.

Subscriptions
Subscription is free for UM seminarians, and is available to all others for $5 per year.

THE THREE OFFICES OF CHRIST: THE MUNUS TRIPLEX AS EXPANSIVE RESOURCES IN ATONEMENT

A critical problem in contemporary theology's approach to the doctrine of the atonement is a persistent tendency to reductionism. Atonement theology is seen to be only an expression of a violent theology; it is seen to be only a reflection of an authoritarian, punitive God; it is seen to be only a source of victimization for women and other oppressed groups. Unless one wishes to succumb to these reductionistic impulses, clearly what is needed are theological resources that expand, enlarge, give room, and offer vision and scope and perspective. 

One way of expanding and enlarging the scope of atonement theology is to relate it with other major Christian doctrines. The cross cannot be understood without accompanying doctrines of the incarnation, trinity, and resurrection. It cannot be understood without a supporting doctrine of creation, sin, Holy Spirit, and eschatology. The full panoply of Christian doctrinal resources is necessary for a fully adequate atonement theology. One way of countering the atonement reductionism of contemporary theology is to make explicit, once again, the connections with other major doctrines. 

These connections can certainly be drawn with fresh awareness of contemporary concerns. Feminism's concern for doctrinal formulations that may invite or allow oppressive practices can be heard and met in such a restatement. For example, the concern expressed by feminism that the cross portrays a vindictive and authoritarian God is, it seems to me, profoundly false when it comes to stating the content of the gospel, but may well be distressingly true in actual ecclesial practice. Thus, the theologian is responsible not only to articulate the gospel for contemporary culture but also to correct ways in which the gospel has been seriously abused in the service of false power and domination. The doctrine of the trinity, with its perspective on reciprocity and mutuality within the inner trinitarian life of God gives a theological corrective to patriarchy and other forms of oppression. 

The doctrine of the atonement, in a current theological context that frequently minimizes or even dismisses it, can benefit from additional resources that may expand and enlarge its scope and give new practical implications in the life of the church. I propose the classic paradigm of the three-fold office of Christ as such an additional resource. This ancient formulation, most often used to denote the whole work of Christ in continuity with his divinely anointed identity, can be used in a more specific way to illuminate the cross. Many, perhaps most, observers and participants in theological discussion may find this proposal odd or quaint. Why dig up an arcane theological formulation to illuminate atonement theology? Are the terms prophet, priest, and king themselves full of some of the very problems contemporary theology is attempting to avoid-namely, an overly authoritarian and masculine portrayal of the work of salvation? Furthermore, is this formulation not oddly mechanical and atomistic? 

Perhaps. Yet, the fruitfulness of the munus triplex for broadening the horizon of atonement theology is worth exploring. Its flexibility and applicability may be a resource for the theologian who wishes to be alert and responsive to contemporary concerns, yet remain faithful to the witness of the church. 

In a very helpful discussion of the munus triplex, G. Wainwright suggests five uses in the history of doctrine. He includes, first, the most common christological use, by which the identity of Christ is articulated in continuity with the OT rite of anointing. Second, there is the baptismal use, by which Christians are identified with Christ in their baptism for full Christian identity and life. Third, there is the soteriological use-the means of understanding the work of Christ. This is close to my own exposition of the munus triplex as a resource for atonement theology, although my own formulation, as follows, attempts to use this rubric as a means of looking at the cross, not the work of Christ in a summary sense. Fourth, there is the ministerial use-i.e., the view of the minister as taking up and continuing the offices of Christ. Fifth, there is the ecclesiological use in the idea of the church as the "extension of the Incarnation," in the words of the 19th-century Catholic theologian J. M`hler. Clearly, the three-fold office is used as a means of illuminating the breadth of the identity of Jesus Christ, his work, the church, and the Christian's identity in baptism. In addition, J.H.C. Newman observed in one of his sermons that the three offices give an anthropological insight-they describe the "three principle conditions of mankind" as suffering (corresponding to priesthood), as laboring (corresponding to kingship), as learning (corresponding to prophet). 

The three-fold office can, as I said, be a resource for expanding and enlarging the doctrine of the atonement by offering a perspective on the cross itself. The important affirmation of the unity of Christ's whole life, teachings, ministry, passion, death, resurrection, and ascension must not be lost. But clearly, the primary objections to atonement theology center on the cross. If the munus triplex can be a resource for atonement theology, it too must be able to focus on the cross. 

The Prophetic Perspective

The prophetic perspective on the cross is that the cross proclaims the true nature of God. On the cross is displayed and demonstrated the heart of God. This proclamation of God does not reveal a God of vengeance but a God of love and compassion. Here is where the suffering love account, in all its paradoxicality and dialectic, must be articulated. The cross is not the scene of divine child abuse, but the vivid, paradoxical display of the love of God as it takes up and overcomes the brokenness of the world. 

When the cross is seen as a proclamation of God's true nature, it can provide powerful insight on the nature of Christ's sufferings. Christ's sufferings were not the result of God's punitive and vindictive wrath; neither were they an expression of Christ's passivity. They are, rather, a revelation of the heart of God. John McLeod Campbell's unique and powerful atonement theology sees the passion of Christ and the sufferings on the cross as a natural outcome of the love of God coming into contact and conflict with the sin of the world (The Nature of the Atonement and Its Relation to the Remission of Sin and Eternal Life [1856; ET of 6th ed., James Clarke, 1959]). McLeod Campbell, in vigorous opposition both to the mainstream of the Calvinist tradition in its emphasis on penal substitution and to Federal theology with its emphasis on a proper moral order in the universe, utterly denied that Christ's sufferings had the character of punishment: "…while Christ suffered for our sins as an atoning sacrifice, what he suffered was not-because from its nature it could not be-a punishment" (117). 

It must not only be admitted but asserted that this sort of prophetic revelation is highly paradoxical. That a violent execution on a hillside outside Jerusalem in first-century Palestine should be the revelation of the loving heart of God is not prima facie obvious. Yet, it is precisely the content of the Christian gospel. 

This approach to the sufferings of Christ addresses, at least in part, the objections of feminist theology that the Christian faith glorifies suffering and self-sacrifice. The prophetic view of the cross as a convincing display of the love of God at least avoids the misunderstandings that can occur with respect to the suffering of Jesus Christ. Other potentially harmful interpretations to women and other oppressed groups-that suffering is the "cross" that God sends to us to bear-must be treated with great care. Although many Christian people have confessed to just this-that their suffering was a channel of God's grace-this insight and confession must always be discovered by the sufferer, and not given or assigned by those in power over the sufferer. 

The Priestly Perspective

The priestly perspective on the cross is where the classic themes of sacrifice, propitiation, substitution, representation, and satisfaction all find voice. Here is the where the contemporary rejection or reduction of Christian atonement theology primarily occurs. Here arise the most difficult issues of the relationship between divine love and divine wrath. 

The potential of the priestly perspective for an enlarged view of the cross in contemporary theology lies in several directions. First, it may be helpful simply to point out that the difficult themes of sacrifice and satisfaction and other corresponding motifs are not the complete package in atonement theology. The cross is not merely the place of sacrifice and substitution. These themes are profoundly important, they are deeply biblical, but they do not in themselves carry the full richness and scope of atonement. The prophetic and kingly are also required. 

Second, a reexamination of some of the most awkward themes, at least in a contemporary setting, is required. For example, it is common among modern criticisms of atonement theology to target Anselm and his theory of satisfaction. The theme of satisfaction is judged to be mechanical, relationally challenged, and overly legalistic. Yet the theme of satisfaction is used in contexts other than Anselm's. Athanasius, for example, in On the Incarnation of the Word, says that Christ satisfied God's integrity in the cross, not God's honor. It was God's truthfulness at stake-God's own fidelity and character. Here is a view of satisfaction that enlarges the Anselmian treatment. Likewise, the tradition is characterized by the theme of the cross satisfying the justice of God. It may well be that these sorts of expansions of the Anselmian version of satisfaction will not reassure critics of this classic theme in the least. At minimum, it must be acknowledged that satisfaction has a flexible and varied use throughout the tradition. 

Other classic themes in the priestly perspective invite careful restatement and reappropriation. Instead of a quick and easy dismissal of a theme like sacrifice, it is worth exploring how this concept continues to have significance in a wide spectrum of cultures, how its crucial appearance in Scripture and its continued use in liturgy and hymns recommend to us the task of restatement, and how we must avoid the pitfall of assigning certain parts of the body of Christ the role of self-sacrifice. All of this is critical work. 

The Kingly Perspective

The kingly role of Christ is also a resource for an expansion or enrichment of the doctrine of the atonement. A few brief examples can be mentioned. First, the nature of Christ's kingly reign from the cross must be explored as a highly paradoxical and dialectical victory. Second, the kingly perspective must affirm recent restatements of the power of God such as those found in D. Migliore's The Power of God (Westminster, 1983). Third, ecclesiology and christology must be integrated. How is the church fulfilling the kingship of Christ in community, in social action for justice, in mission? 

The munus triplex as a resource for atonement theology reclaims some old themes in the Christian tradition that are surprisingly (why should this surprise us?) relevant for our own contemporary theological situation. It expands understandings of the cross that are too constricted by set theological formulae. It breaks caricatures of classic themes. It broadens our appreciation of images and metaphors that are present, yet muted, in the reformed tradition. It gives a perspective on the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ that is wide in scope and cosmic in implications. Surely, that is the perspective required of Christian believers concerning the reconciliation God was and is working through Jesus Christ. 

By Leanne Van Dyk, Associate Professor of Reformed Theology, Western Theological Seminary, Holland, Michigan.