Christus Victor of the Marginalized

Gustaf Aulén’s Christus Victor model of the atonement might help us to develop resistance to contemporary manifestations of empire in some important ways. Less concerned with the question of whether or not God exists, Aulén was interested in posing the question, “which God are we talking about”? Are there any alternatives to the God of the empire (he who upholds the status quo and guarantees the success of powers that be)? In neocolonial theology, God has become a function of the system, so much so that God and the triumph of the neocolonial empire are inextricably intertwined. At first, it would appear that Aulén’s Christology from above might line up closely with the hierarchical designs of neocolonialism, where victory and achievement are expected to be a top-down phenomena; but this is not necessarily true. To begin with, Aulén argued that Christianity’s relevance lay in its inherent opposition to the immense powers that threaten to enslave or perhaps to engulf humanity. Of course, these powers would need to be named specifically if the victorious Christ is to be seen as one who resists empire.

It should be noted as well that Aulén’s Christology from above was not entirely incompatible with a Christology from below that begins from the place where Christ actually did; in unity with those who suffer oppression at the hand of the empire and who struggle for liberation. It is vital to remember that Jesus came to gather what is low and despised in the world (1 Corinthians 1:28) and that His victory was won in the depths of humiliation. Additionally, it was because of the fact that Christ resisted the empire that He ended up dying on one of the empire’s crosses. When we understand that His victory was achieved in the depths, it should force us to reconsider our former understanding of God and His power, which should no longer be viewed as operating from the top-down. Aulén furthermore managed to challenge the Christology from below of modern liberal theology; which was still effectively an approach from above even though it began with humanity, due to the fact that the human Christ was defined and controlled by the middle class powers that be. Aulén’s Christology from above (on the other hand) could actually be considered an approach from below if we are careful to point out that the triumphant Christ, who was engaged in the struggle against sin and evil, lived in solidarity with society’s marginalized, died in resistance to the Roman empire, and attained to victory through suffering. In this light, victory can no longer be equated with neocolonial successes.

Surprisingly, Aulén’s dualism between good and evil might provide us with means whereby we might counter and even overcome a common tactic of the neocolonial empire, which itself uses dualism as a means of exclusion. When early Christian dualism is viewed in its proper historical context (it developed during a period of extreme pressure and suffering) it can produce resistance because it announces a struggle, which throws a wrench into neat rational systems and seemingly secure ideas. Still, it differs from the absolute dualism of empire in that the struggle which it refers to is not everlasting; a suggestion which can stimulate hope and encourage resistance. Aulén’s critique of liberal humanism was also significant because, as it developed from the Enlightenment onward, modern liberalism was a driving force for colonialism. The energy for its allegedly salvific activism and optimism was actually derived from colonial forms of empire, and its power was developed in relation to the colonial other. Aulén desired to eliminate the modern liberal self (understood as the closest thing to a universally ideal human nature, and thus Christ) altogether, but ultimately this was deficient. The self which is the object of Christ’s salvation needs to be restructured, the principalities and powers need to be named, and salvation itself needs to be redefined in relation to the perspectives of poor and oppressed peoples lest an imperial presence be allowed to fill in the gaps.

Christus Victor of the Winners

It was the goal of Gustaf Aulén in his book “Christus Victor” to emphasize the exclusivity of the work of God in salvation. He was convinced that humanity did not and could not contribute in any way, shape or form to Christ’s victory. He was also persuaded that the two dominant models of the atonement in his day (the moral influence theory common to the theology of the Enlightenment and the satisfaction/penal substitution theory characteristic of medieval theology and conservative Protestantism) were too anthropocentric, failed to preserve a single-minded stress upon God’s salvific labor, and were a departure from the bible as well as Patristic theology. He deemed his own model the classical model, and in his construction, God in Christ was presented as the sole actor in salvation; God was not only the one who reconciles but also the one who was reconciled in the atonement. Aulén’s model, which presented Christ as having been victorious over the powers of darkness (specifically sin, death, and the devil) was also rife with images of liberation. How could Aulén’s Christ possibly support structures of empire?

At the outset, we should point out that even though Aulén refused to conform to either conservative or liberal approaches, he was also unconcerned with the relationship of either Christological model to the various stages of empire formation. His strong emphasis on the top-down movement of Christ created other problems, and even carried with it a triumphalistic tone. Christ’s victory over sin, death and the devil apparently occurred without much of a struggle and did not bear any relation to the suffering and defeat of the marginalized. It is as though God in Christ simply overpowered his enemies and subsequently celebrated his victory over them. God’s power thus seems to be in sync with colonial power. While Aulén did reject some of the more extreme notions of omnipotence which insist that everything that ever occurs is derived from God’s omnipotent arm, and instead maintained that God exercises his power only in opposition to the anti-God elements at work within the world, he never explained what those anti-God elements were. On top of this, while he greatly stressed the reality of sin, he only did so at a very abstract level, never having given us a concrete definition of the word by engaging in conversation about the very specific sins of his own day which were enslaving and killing humanity. Ultimately, it would be rather easy for the imperial victors (who’s success often determines by default the definition of these terms) to co-opt the terminology for their own purposes.

Additionally, Aulén held to a strict dualism between good and evil. The church was always on the side of the good, and would without question end up victorious over evil. While the church could at times be found in the wrong, this was never because it was mistaken with regard to its understanding of what exactly constituted good and evil, but rather, it was because it was failing to put into practice what it already knew. It appears as if the idea that the church itself might be incorrect with regard to its beliefs and/or unconsciously influenced by the powers of darkness was a thought that never entered his mind. It should be obvious why this sort of dualism could be dangerous, however it does not lead necessarily to the support of empire. Nevertheless, it can be extremely oppressive when placed into the hands of those in power and when it is then linked to triumphalism; the very attitude often reflected in Aulén’s ecclesiology. In conclusion, although at first glance Aulén’s critique of modern anthropocentrism appears to challenge the mindset of the colonial oppressors (who considered themselves autonomous and superior) he never actually gets around to informing us what (exactly) is wrong with humans cooperating with Christ in salvation; except to say that Christ’s work is more effective than that of humans. In the end, since Christ is merely quantitatively distinct from the victors, and not necessarily qualitatively distinct, neither colonial nor neocolonial inclinations are confronted.

Theology between Colonialism and Neocolonialism

Joerg Rieger has chosen the twentieth century Swedish theologian Gustaf Aulén as the next subject in his examination of the relationship between theology and empire, primarily because it was he who made famous the Christus Victor model of the Atonement and additionally because of his strong emphasis upon the top-down movement of Christ. Aulén is an intriguing character with respect to our current study because his Christology largely transcended the old liberal/conservative divide (he discarded what he identified as modern liberalism’s anthropocentrism, its downplay of sin, and its dismissal of great portions of the church’s tradition, while simultaneously denouncing the narrow rationalism of fundamentalist and foundationalist approaches, which he believed wrongfully limited Christianity’s radical nature). This created a surplus which enables resistance against colonialist structures of empire. However, as a result of his failure to address the political and economic contexts of Christian theology and mission during the time in which he wrote, he often ends up supporting empire by default.

The conclusion of World War II is very often regarded as the point at which a shift began to occur in the West; a colonialist frame of mind was steadily being exchanged for a neocolonialist mentality. The principle difference between colonialism and neocolonialism resides in the way in which power is organized within each of the respective systems. While power was gained and maintained through direct political control over colonized territories in the colonial system, in a neocolonial system, power is attained and preserved through economic, cultural, and other less visible networks, even long after direct political control has been surrendered (multinational companies represent a key way in which power operates within a neocolonial organization). A fundamental supposition of the emerging neocolonial point of view was that non-Western peoples would benefit greatly if they could only be trained in the values of Western civilization. It was this particular attitude which replaced some of the more severe attitudes and actions that are typically associated with colonialism. While it is certainly true that many of the more explicit manifestations of empire theology were disappearing during Aulén’s lifetime, theology which lent support to imperial structures had not vanished altogether. The colonial mindset was still lingering beneath the surface, functioning in a much more subtle manner, having seeped into the political, economic and cultural unconscious.

Aulén’s contribution will serve as a fantastic representation of the theology of this transitional period; he himself to some degree reflecting the unconscious shift from a colonial to a neocolonial frame of mind. On the one hand, he resisted the more obvious dangers of the colonial outlook of modernity as well its parallel confidence in the modern self which tended to supply the foundation for global expansionism. He was also a part of the resistance against the extension of German National Socialism (to the point at which his life was eventually threatened by members of Germany’s secret police). He believed (and articulated) that the cause of Nazi Germany was immoral, and that it violated even the most elementary claims of justice. Furthermore, he challenged self-centered nationalism which could often motivate colonial efforts, and had a great appreciation for diversity and multiplicity which colonialism (in many ways) sought to squelch. On the other hand, Aulén had little (if anything) to say concerning the neocolonial maneuverings of his homeland which had invented and pioneered multinational companies. Moreover, his rejection of self-centered nationalism in favor of worldwide international relationships, as well as his positive view of difference and variety, do not necessarily overcome neocolonial dynamics in their entirety, for neocolonialism also seeks to break down national borders and has an appreciation for diversity to some extent as well.