XV. Of Christ alone without sin

Christ in the truth of our nature was made like unto us in all things, sin only except, from which he was clearly void, both in his flesh, and in his spirit

It is a sad comment on the state of Anglican Christianity in this country (a common lede these days) that there is a Bishop in this Church who described the Lord Jesus in the diocesan newspaper as sinful. It still boggles my mind what utility such a position could have for theology. C. Fitzsimons Alison argues that Bennison sees the Crucifixion and Resurrection as God's obligatory rescue from an evil world that is evil on God's account, not ours. I should note that Alison's critique misreads Jack Miles' Christ: A Crisis in the Life of God , or else Alison does not recognize that Miles' position, though somewhat revolutionary, is not entirely subversive. Miles can be read to suggest that Jesus came to minister to the lost sheep of the House of Israel (i.e., all of them), bear their unrighteous vengeance for feeling betrayed by God (see the Gospels' account of mockery on the Cross), and bring a more universal vision of the just Kingdom of God. But since I do not have Miles' book with me, I can't confirm my reading. But frankly, Alison's critique has at its root the interminable discourse of penal substitution. And thus if you don't follow the formula to the letter, Alison thinks you're a heretic. Going too far down this course makes the other Alison (James) a heretic, Jerome a heretic, and puts Augustine in Hell (hyperbole...).

But one could have a variety of other soteriological hypotheses and still rely on Christ's sinlessness:

Christus Victor: How could one victorious over sin be implicated in it?

Christus Advocatus (my combination of Job and Hebrews): Lawyers generally should not be felons.

Christus Exemplar: Why imitate someone sinful?

And about anything involving putting on Christ or joining the Body of Christ to escape the wrath to come falls by the wayside, too.

Th difference between penal substitution and all other soteriological hypotheses is that in the first, God is a not free author of Grace, He compels Himself to offer Grace, suggesting disharmony between the Persons (heretical...) or a passionate desire for death and pain (also heretical...God neither has such a passion nor delight in the death of sinners). He also desires that they turn from their ways and live. But let us consider the alternative, why cannot God offer Grace freely to all? Well, I believe God can and has made that offer. But He constantly complains in the parables that we never accept it. Thus, whatever the exact means of salvation (too high a mystery), Jesus Christ is the means through which we accept that Grace. Perhaps, His one, perfect offering, sacrifice, and oblation is to be interpreted as satisfaction for sin alone. Or perhaps it shows the way for us to offer ourselves with Him in thanksgiving for Grace, because we cannot possibly repay Him. But anyone who denies Christ's sinlessness must explain why Christ is an effective conduit for Grace more than any other. Scripture and Tradition often answer that question by pointing out His sinlessness.

Getting back to the words of the Article itself, the phrase "in flesh and spirit" are ironically dualistic to me. But the Articulators mean as Christ did that we sin in "thought" as much as "word and deed." The Lord Jesus was sinless in every respect, including by the definitions of his own teaching.

He came to be the Lamb without spot, who by sacrifice of himself once made, should take away the sins of the world; and sin (as St. John saith) was not in him.

The Lamb without spot is the sacrificial victim of Passover, which is an odd choice for an offering of satisfaction for sin. It is a sacrifice of identity, liberation, and covenant. However, the Articulators speak of a sacrifice of himself once made, presumably referring to Hebrews 9, in which we are told that Christ's sacrifice was once for all. I have written elsewhere on Christ fulfilling the entirety of the sacrificial system, but I want to make it clear that the Articulators did not see Christ as the Passover victim alone.

But all we the rest, although baptized, and born again in Christ, yet offend in many things, and if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

One of my instructors in college began to describe the views of Augustine of Hippo thus, "We sin constantly," to which a friend of mine snidely replied, "We're doing it right now." Perhaps, the less snide reply to the final section of this Article is to consider the tension between individual sin of the members and the corporate sinlessness traditionally associated with the Body of Christ. The issue is difficult, and I have no particularly clever solution to it. However, I think we must again look at the sinlessness of Christ to see the root of the idea. The sinlessness of the Body is founded on Christ and his acts and his continual intercession, which overwhelm in the eyes of God the sins of the individual members presumably justified by faith, "regard not our sins but the faith of your Church." The mistake is for us to say that X must be or must have been right, because the Church makes no mistakes, or we will not apologize for that, because the Body is sinless. But when we do so, we implicate Christ in X, because the sinlessness of the Body is founded on Christ. Do we really want to implicate Christ in X? Or are we sure Christ really is implicated in X? The Articulators warn us not to use Christ's sinlessness as justification for our own, so let us instead confess our sins and be cleansed from all unrighteousness on account of Christ's sinlessness and obedience.