Robert Letham on the Moral Influence Theory

The claim that the atonement was principally a demonstration of the love of God, its power residing in a moral and subjective change in us as we contemplate what Christ did, is most frequently described as the moral influence theory. Peter Abelard (1079-1142) has been identified as its founder. This is false on two counts. First, a purely exemplary cast had been suggested for atonement long before Abelard. Clement of Alexandria (c. 155 - c. 220) had taught that Christ was an illuminator whose task involved the impartation of knowledge (Protrepticos 11, 114, 4, GCS 12,, 80-81; Paedogogus 1, 5, MPG 8, 261-280; Stromatum 2, 22, MPG 8, 1079f.). Second, the claim for Abelard rests on one passage in his writings, in his Exposition of the Epistle to the Romans, in particular his comments on Romans 3:19-26. In fact, the case rests on just one sentence, which states that redemption is 'love in us'. Earlier in the selfsame context, however, Abelard has unequivocally spoken of redemption by the blood of Christ, which he sees as his death. He rejects a ransom paid to Satan for it is properly paid to God. Hence, the atonement is in reality a Godward phenomenon and not a subjective moral change in us. Recent scholarship has recognized this to be so.[16]

The real genesis of the idea appears to be in Enlightenment Germany. In Britain, Hastings Rashdall attempted belatedly to popularize it in 1915 but by then it was too late, for the First World War was to shatter optimism about the nature of humanity and to encourage a recovery of the idea of sin and depravity. This indeed was the Achilles heel of the theory. Its basic predicate was that human beings have the power to improve themselves morally. The doctrine of original sin and any ensuing depravity was viewed as intolerable, hence the attempt to empty the atonement of ideas of a divine transaction concerning sin, wrath and judgment. That this was a naively complacent view of human nature was demonstrated beyond question by the horrors of the decades after Rashdall. Two world wars, Auschwitz, Hiroshima and countless revelations of human wickedness have rendered the position untenable. Of course, Christ's death does produce a subjective moral change in those who contemplate it in faith by the power of the Holy Spirit. Where the theory goes wrong is in seeing this change as the atonement.
_______________
16. R. E. Weingart, The Logic of Divine Love: A Critical Analysis of the Soteriology of Peter Abailard (Oxford: Clarendon, 1970), pp. 78–96, 125–126; R. O. P. Taylor, 'Was Abelard an Exemplarist?', Theology 31, 1935, pp. 207–213; Alister McGrath, 'The Moral Theory of the Atonement: An Historical and Theological Critique', SJT, 38, 1985, pp. 205–220.

Robert Letham, The Work of Christ (Downers Grove: IVP, 1993), 166–167.

In a recent phone conversation, I heard an Abelard myth repeated again, so the Letham quote above came to mind. How many times has it been said that Abelard held to a moral influence theory? Why has it been so often repeated? Well, if Letham's (as well as Weingart, Taylor and McGrath) assessment of Abelard is correct, then it must be because many people, even scholars and teachers, are merely reading unreliable secondary sources. How often are myths like this repeated about other men of the past? I leave that for you to decide as you check out primary sources for yourself. Ad Fontes!