Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Steve E Weeks's avatar

After decades confined within evangelical protestantism, itself born alongside rational enlightenment epistemology, it’s taken me years to get my head around the idea that alternative atonement theories may exist, let alone co-exist in a dialectical way.

Iain McGilchrist’s “Master & Emissary” suggested to me that the bicameral mind (ours) is even designed to assimilate attention into understanding through a dynamic interaction between two different ways of knowing.

Naturally I’m still likely to accidentally throw the infant baby Jesus out with the bath water by rejecting PSA (a suspicious latecomer IMHO!) in preference for Recapitulation and Christus Victor (CV). But before I accede to your multi-modal view, I’m still working through classification questions.

For example: I don’t see that Recapitulation is at all separate from, let alone exclusive of, CV and I question: shouldn’t we distinguish illustrative recapitulation from effective recapitulation to avoid misconstruing recapitulation as a partner of PSA?

My last essay at http://SteveWeeks.Blog on “Good Art by Bad People” argues with René Girard that the cross deliberately echoes (in recapitulation?) a sacrifice, but it is not another sacrifice; nor is it a final sacrifice to end sacrifice (PSA?); but is the unmasking of sacrifice for its true identity as pagan religion.

My next essay will argue this, not from the previous starting point , but from the new question of whether classification of atonement concepts might help by separating illustrations and metaphors from a recapitulation of The Core Story, if there is one!

No posts

Ready for more?