MetaCatholic

(See the Introduction to this series, Article I, update)

The second of the Anglican articles is the first of three on the Son, and like that on God it seeks to locate Anglican theology in the mainstream classical tradition.

II. Of the Word or Son of God, which was made very Man
The Son, which is the Word of the Father, begotten from everlasting of the Father, the very and eternal God, and of one substance with the Father, took Man’s nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin, of her substance: so that two whole and perfect Natures, that is to say, the Godhead and Manhood, were joined together in one Person, never to be divided, whereof is one Christ, very God, and very Man; who truly suffered, was crucified, dead and buried, to reconcile his Father to us, and to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for all actual sins of men.

There’s both a clear borrowing (as there often is in the articles) from the Augsburg Confession, but also some interesting differences:

Also they teach that the Word, that is, the Son of God, did assume the human nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin Mary, so that there are two natures, the divine and the human, inseparably enjoined in one Person, one Christ, true God and true man, who was born of the Virgin Mary, truly suffered, was crucified, dead, and buried, that He might reconcile the Father unto us, and be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for all actual sins of men

The Anglican article places a greater stress on the eternal begetting of the Son, and his consubstantial being with the Father before borrowing the latter part of the Lutheran wording. It also comes second, whereas in the Lutheran form, an article on original sin comes between that on God, and that on Christ. There is, I think, something important in this concentrating on the Trinity before moving too quickly to the ordo salutis. The Son is defined by who he is in relationship to the Father before he is known in relationship to the human situation. The doctrine of the Trinity is about God and God is not just about us. There is a basis here for strong resistance to any Feuerbachian projectionism, or any non-realist perspective; God is God, irrespective of any “us” to whom he might be our God.

The article is undoubtedly right to link incarnation and atonement, but I do find myself running into problems with the way in which it does so. Is it really appropriate to say “to reconcile his Father to us”? Among the stronger Pauline statements are these (all NRSV) which are very much about us being reconciled to God:

• Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood (Rom 3:24-25 – even if ἱλαστήριον is read as propitiation, it doesn’t change the status of God as initiator))
• For if while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more surely, having been reconciled, will we be saved by his life. (Rom 5:10)
• All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting the message of reconciliation to us. (2 Cor 5:18-19)
• through him God was pleased to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, by making peace through the blood of his cross. (Col 1:20)

The predominant direction of reconciliation, is of our being reconciled to God, by God, through Christ, and not of God being reconciled to us. The language of the article is, at best, careless, and such language gives an unfortunate apparent authority to some versions of atonement theory that divide God’s work from Christ’s. (Equally, the fuller statement of the BCP’s prayer of consecration gets the emphasis right by locating the initiative in God’s “tender mercy”.)

This correction, however, should not detract from the main thrust of the article, which emphasizes the incarnation of the eternal Son as the undergirding presupposition of any reconciliation or atonement. In full accord with the classical tradition: Christ’s Work depends on his Person. Unless he is fully God, he cannot bring us to God, unless he is fully human he cannot bring us to God.

Nor, because he is both the God who has made all, and the brother of all who share his flesh and blood, can there be any limited atonement. This sacrifice is “not only for original guilt, but also for all actual sins of men.” Neither state of sinfulness nor actual sin lies outside the scope of God’s work in Christ, precisely because the focus of belief is God the Son, and not the human predicament.

When our ideas about atonement focus too much on either the problem of sin, or the mechanism of salvation, they are not only likely to go wrong, but they may become sources of distortion (like limited atonement) or shibboleths of doctrine (like penal substitution – see Peter Kirk’s various discussion). When, like this article, they focus on the identity of the Saviour, then their scope is enlarged, and our confidence is placed in the one who brings us to God, and not our grasp of any mechanism by which we might get there.