[This series of blog posts comes from a paper of mine from TEDS in Dr. Graham Cole's Theology 2 course. You can view part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5, and part 6.]

Christus victor is not without its share of criticisms. For example, Tom Schreiner suggests that a Christus victor approach to the atonement “downplays, perhaps inadvertently, the notion of individual responsibility.”²⁹ Quite simply, it doesn’t deal with individual sin. Christus victor may rightly emphasize that Christ is the conquering king and submission to his authority is necessary, but without a restored relationship through the application of the Holy Spirit’s regenerating work of salvation, submission to the king is not possible. Indeed, if the problem of sin was the impetus for the curse, it would seem that a theory of the atonement that rightfully wishes to see the cosmos fully restored must take into account how the main problem is dealt with. Christus victor, on its own, does not accomplish this.

Furthermore, theories of the atonement that emphasize the victorious triumph of Christ often lack the resources to explain the means by which Christ victory was accomplished. Col. 1:20 states that the reconciliation of all things and the peace of God coming to earth happens “by the blood of his cross.” While the life of Christ lived by the power of the Spirit is of atoning significance, it is not all that must take place. That is, the life of Christ is necessary but not sufficient for the complete effect of the atonement to be accomplished. Christus victor, like penal substitution, does not have the explanatory power to stand as an isolated theory of the atonement.

Since neither penal substitution nor Christus victor can stand up to the criticisms without a complementary theory or theories of the atonement, one would wonder whether either of these theories can be said to be the “central metaphor” of the atonement.³⁰ But how then can the theologian move beyond competing or complementary stories of the atonement to a unified theory of the Triune God’s unified act for us and for our salvation? As long as two or more theories of the atonement abound, there will continually be debate and discussion about which theory of the atonement captures the essence of the work of Christ. This is an inevitable but unfortunate result of modern attempts of synthesizing information. Robert Sherman has proposed what he calls “a Trinitarian theology of atonement,” whereby “one can understand adequately neither Christ’s multifaceted reconciliation of a complex humanity to God nor that reconciliation’s fundamental unity as God’s gracious act apart from the Trinity.”³¹ When one views the work of the Triune God on behalf of humanity in the context of redemptive history as the means by which salvation is achieved, there will be less bifurcation of the diverse elements of the atonement.³² The remaining portion of this paper will attempt to make use of Sherman’s Trinitarian theology of atonement with some modification, specifically in relation to the Biblical-theological emphasis lacking in Sherman’s approach as well as allowing the works of the members of the Trinity to be more organically defined. By examining redemptive history and the establishment of the kingdom of God, with special references to Christ’s threefold offices of prophet, priest, and king, an alternative approach to a theology of the atonement will be modestly offered.

32. Certainly this paper is not arguing that systematic descriptions of the atonement ought to be done away with. Rather, it is arguing that Trinitarian mission ought to be the backbone out of which one’s description of Christ’s work evolves.^↑

[This series of blog posts comes from a paper of mine from TEDS in Dr. Graham Cole's Theology 2 course. You can view part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, and part 5.]

Though they find a place within the witness of Scripture (as well as the first few centuries of Christian theology) penal substitution and Christus victor are not nor have been free of critiques. Though many different objections have been raised to each theory, the most pressing of the bunch will be discussed here, and it will be argued the best way to overcome such objections is by incorporating many stories into one’s model of the atonement and by focusing on the atoning work of the Triune God. First, penal substitution has been criticized of dividing the unity of the Godhead. The doctrine has often been stated in such away that it appears that the wrathful Father is pouring out his anger on the loving and innocent Son who willingly takes the vengeance. Though there are several ways of answering this objection, the most resourceful response is that of a robust Trinitarian theology that sees God as Trinity acting in the world for the redemption of humanity. The Father and the Son do not act against one another; though it was “the will of the LORD to crush him” (Is. 53:10), Christ endured the cross “for the joy that was set before him” (Heb. 12:2). Because of the intimate communion of holy, divine love and justice that permeates throughout the Trinitarian relations, Christ sees it as his fulfillment of the divine mission to do the will of the Father (Luke 22:42). There is no child abuse or Trinitarian bickering here—only divine love willing to pursue death, even death on a cross for the salvation of all who will believe.

Second, penal substitution, stated improperly, can make the resurrection of Christ seem insignificant. For instance, Thomas Schreiner suggests that “it should be noted that such forgiveness would not be ours apart from the death and resurrection of Christ (Rom. 4:25). Too often evangelicals refer to the substitutionary atonement but fail to say anything about the resurrection.”²³ However, in a footnote Schreiner says, “It follows then that the cross and resurrection together secure salvation; the cross without the resurrection would not be a saving event. Hence, when I speak of the cross in the remainder of this essay, the resurrection is also implied, so that both are essential to God’s saving work in Christ.”²⁴ How can this be? Schreiner wants to say that penal substitution is the “anchor” of every theory of the atonement, but he admits that the cross would be nothing without the victorious resurrection of Christ over death. Would it not then seem as if the resurrection is the part of the atonement that roots and secures all the others? This is a problem one runs into when a specific theory of the atonement is elevated above or at the expense of the other theories present in Scripture.²⁵ By valuing penal substitution as one among many aspects of the atonement, this problem disappears quickly.

Third, penal substitution remains incomplete without attributing saving significance to the life of Christ. Indeed, in contrast to Israel, who was exiled into the desert and continually failed to show themselves to be true children of God by succumbing to temptation in the wilderness, Christ went into the desert and showed himself to be the true and better embodiment of Israel, God’s faithful and true Son, who won the victory over Satan’s temptation in the wilderness (Luke 4). It is on the basis of this “one act of righteousness” (Rom. 5:18)—that is, Christ’s whole life-long act of obedience to the Father through the power of the Spirit—that he, the second Adam, is able to vanquish the one act of unrighteousness committed by the first Adam.²⁶ The only way this emphasis can be achieved is by an emphasis on the Biblical-theological mission of the Triune God for us and for our salvation.

Fourth, as hinted at above, penal substitution on its own fails to take account of the work of the Holy Spirit in the atonement. If, for example, penal substitution refers to a legal transaction between the Father and the Son, what role is left for the third person of the Godhead? It seems better to continue God’s work for humanity through the pouring out of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost as the part of the fulfillment of God’s redemptive plan, intimately tied to the coming of the kingdom of God.²⁷ While other objections to penal substitution could be mentioned,²⁸ the representative obstacles mentions above are enough to emphasize the point that misunderstandings of the doctrine arrive out of either a reductionistic view of the atonement or a poor concept of Trinitarian mission.

23. Thomas Schreiner, “Penal Substitution View,” The Nature of the Atonement, 73 (emphasis original).^↑

28. For example, some have said that penal substitution demands a rejection of impassibility, for it requires something to “be done to” God. Moreover, some have objected that penal substitution focuses solely on Pauline soteriology at the neglect or expense of the Gospel narratives.^↑

[This series of blog posts comes from a paper of mine from TEDS in Dr. Graham Cole's Theology 2 course. You can view part 1, part 2, part 3 and part 4.]

Besides the witness of Scripture, those who propose either penal substitution or Christus victor argue that their theories are deeply rooted in the history of the church. While Scripture is obviously the most important arbiter of any theological formulation, attestation in church history is significant for the purposes of listening to the great voices of the past. Unfortunately, there is some debate regarding the presence of a penal substitutionary theory of the atonement in patristic and medieval literature. For example, Gustaf Aulen, in his classic work Christus Victor, argues that the “dramatic” view of the atonement (i.e., christus victor, also called by Aulen the “classical view”), which leaves the redemptive action of God unbroken, was the prominent theory held by the church fathers.¹

On the other hand, Jeffery, Ovey, and Sach seem to find penal substitution in many patristic and medieval theologians. One wonders if this is simply a case of a theologian deciding which theory of the atonement he or she would like to advance and subsequently searching the literature to find examples of the theory. Or, does church history speak to a variety of views of the atonement? While the former may be the case in isolated instances, it is better to understand the diversity of views present throughout church history as complementary rather than exclusive.

Church historian J.N.D. Kelly is helpful in suggesting a way that one must pursue the church fathers’ soteriology. He says, “the student who seeks to understand the soteriology of the fourth and early fifth centuries will be sharply disappointed if he expects to find anything corresponding to the elaborately worked out syntheses which the contemporary theology of the Trinity and the Incarnation presents. In both these latter departments controversy forced fairly exact definition on the Church, whereas the redemption did not become a battle-ground for rival schools until the twelfth century, when Anselm’s Cur dues homo (c. 1097) focused attention on it.”² It is understandable, then, that one could find examples of many theories of the atonement within the church fathers; however, it is foolish to think of their descriptions of the cross as monolithic.

Kelly suggests three main theories of significance that find their way into the fathers. First, the “physical” or “mystical” theory, which sees a close connection between the incarnation and redemption was sanctioned by Irenaeus. “According to this,” states Kelly, “human nature was sanctified, transformed and elevated by the very act of Christ’s becoming man.”³ Second, the redemption was often explained by the use of the image of a “ransom” being paid to or forfeited from the Devil, expressed in the writings of Ireneaus and Origen. Third, focus was often given to the Saviour’s sufferings in a view often called the “realist” view. This theory “placed the cross in the foreground, and pictured Christ as substituting Himself for sinful men, shouldering the penalty which justice required them to pay, and reconciling them to God by His sacrificial death.”⁴

However, Kelly notices that these theories should by no means be considered incompatible; rather, they were “attempts to elucidate the same great truth from different angles; their superficial divergences are often due to different Biblical images from which they started, and there is no logical reason why, carefully stated, they should not be regarded as complementary.”⁵ Accordingly, one ought to embrace the variety in the expressions of the atonement found in the church fathers.

1. Gustaf Aulen, Christus Victor Christus Victor: An Historical Study of the Three Main Types of the Idea of the Atonement,(London: S.P.C.K., 1961), 83-85.^↑

[This series of blog posts comes from a paper of mine from TEDS in Dr. Graham Cole's Theology 2 course. You can view part 1, part 2, and part 3.]

Today we will consider two instances of how Christ’s victory is expressed in The Gospel according to Luke. First, in the temptation narrative of Luke 4, “Jesus as God’s Son, that is, Israel’s Messiah, replays the story of Israel’s experience in the wilderness, in what amounts to a ‘new exodus.’ Tempted by hunger, Jesus (unlike Israel) depends wholly on God for sustenance (cf. Deut. 8:3).”¹⁶ Jesus will not fall in worship before the devil in order to receive the kingdoms of the world, and as such he “represents the nation and fulfills the task of eschatological Israel in the wilderness.’ Israel’s restoration has begun through the victory of God’s Son over the devil.”¹⁷

Second, in Luke 4:16-30, Jesus speaks of Is. 61:1-2 being fulfilled among his hearers. The passage in Isaiah looked forward to one who would have the Spirit of the Lord upon him and would come preaching good news to the poor, bringing freedom for prisoners, giving healing to the blind, and releasing the oppressed. In other words, the one who would come “to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor” (Is. 61:2). Jesus sees himself as this Spirit-filled one bringing victory to the marginalized. “As the eschatological prophet Jesus announces the ultimate Jubilee: he comes ‘to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favour.’”¹⁸ His very presence on earth manifests God’s temple dwelling and begins the conquest of evil. Moreover, Luke describes the demons as being subject to the word of Jesus in Luke 10:17. Thus Ladd: “The New Testament locates the Kingdom in Jesus’ person and ministry…The victory over demons is a victory in the spiritual realm; but it took place because Jesus came on the plane of history to overthrow evil and deliver men from bondage.”¹⁹ Yet, the victory of the establishment of the kingdom of God is not solely won on the basis of the life of Christ; it is finally achieved at the death of Christ in his fulfilled mission of submission to the Father, when the criminal beside him on the cross recognizes his kingship (Luke 23:42).²⁰ This victory is sealed at the resurrection of Christ, which serves as the first fruits of the final resurrection now guaranteed on the basis of Christ’s victory over death. Though the victory of God and the establishment of the kingdom is “already-not yet” in its nature, it is as good as won in the person and work of Christ.²¹

This brief survey of the Biblical-theological theme of victory, especially as related to the kingdom of God, has served to show that the Christus victor story of the atonement certainly finds its support in Scripture. While it is broader in its scope than the cross, it is certainly not less than it. It is one facet of the gloriously rich doctrine of the atonement.

16. Andreas Kostenberger and Peter T. O’Brien, Salvation to the Ends of The Earth: A Biblical Theology of Mission (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2001), 115.^↑

21. The analogy of D-Day and VE-Day in WWII is often used to express this “inaugurated eschatology.” In the same way that WWII was effectively won after the invasion of the Allied army on June 6, 1944 yet not completely finished until May 8, 1945, so also is God’s victory won in Christ yet not definitively consummated. The church awaits the return of Christ (along with the accompanying defeat of the last enemy, death) and the establishment of the ultimate reign of God in the new heavens and new earth.^↑

[This series of blog posts comes from a paper of mine from TEDS in Dr. Graham Cole's Theology 2 course.]

We saw in part 1 and part 2 that penal substitution seems to be firmly grounded in the narrative of Scripture. However, most theologians note that this theory of the atonement is not all that was going on in the work of Christ. Some theologians, for example, have suggested the metaphor of victory as a central theme of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.¹¹ In order to assess the place of this model of the atonement in theology, a closer look at Christus victor’s Biblical-theological foundations is in order.

Simply put, “The Christus victor approach to the death and resurrection of Christ lays considerable emphasis upon the notion of Christ’s victory over forces which enslave humanity—such as satanic oppression, evil spirits, fear of death, or the power of sin.”¹² In the Biblical-theological narrative of Scripture, the motif of victory is considerably prominent. Indeed, the drama of redemption finds as its bookends the victory of God. Immediately after the fall, God addresses the serpent in the protoevangelium (”first gospel”), pronouncing the victory that will be achieved over him: “he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel” (Gen. 3:15). Yet, this anticipated Christological victory is seen as accomplished by John in his Revelation when the slain lamb stands in heaven being worshipped as the one who has “ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation” (Rev. 5:9). Interestingly enough, the bookends of Scripture point to the center-piece of redemptive history, the crux of the atonement: the cross of Christ. Indeed, the cross is the central means by which God reconciles the world to himself (2 Cor. 5:14-19). First John 3:8 clearly states that the purpose the Son of God was revealed was “to destroy the works of the devil,” and the Christus victor theory of the atonement expresses this accomplishment.

Yet God’s goal for humanity, though expressed in the cross, is much broader than the image which the cross affords us. Greg Beale’s The Temple and the Church’s Mission is helpful in understanding the broader concept of the missio dei (”mission of God”) revealed from Genesis to Revelation. Beale sees the Garden of Eden as “the first archetypal temple,” which was the “model for all subsequent temples.”¹³ The “Old Testament tabernacle and temples,” he suggests, “were symbolically designed to point to the cosmic eschatological reality that God’s tabernacling presence, formerly limited to the holy of holies, was to be extended throughout the whole earth.”¹⁴ The significance of this is that Beale sees the concept of mission in Scripture proceeding the fall, which means that God’s ultimate plan for the cosmos is not simply to rid the effects of the fall but instead to manifest his intimate restful presence (shalom) in the world among his worshipping people. The fall was an obstacle to this goal, and through the narrative of Scripture we see God re-establishing his temple presence on earth, specifically through Christ’s tearing down and rebuilding of himself—the true eschatological temple—through his death and resurrection. However, any talk of mission and the presence of God must be intimately woven into the fabric of the kingdom of God, the realm and reign of God which “is not merely an abstract concept that God is the eternal King and rules over all; it is also a dynamic concept of the acting of God.”¹⁵ By weaving the concepts of mission and kingdom, the work of Christ in his incarnation, his Spirit-led life, his death, and his victorious resurrection become vitally important for understanding the victory of God. In other words, Christ does not simply establish God’s victory over the evil powers of Satan and sin in and on the cross; instead, God’s in-breaking into the world through him and his establishing God’s temple presence by dwelling (tabernacling) among his people (John 1:14) is the inauguration of the kingdom of God and the beginning of his cosmic victory.

11. See, for example, Gregory Boyd, “Christus Victor View of the Atonement,” The Nature of the Atonement, 23-49.^↑

15. George Ladd, The Presence of the Future, rev. ed. (New York, NY: Harper and Row, 1974), 144.^↑

He, the Mighty One, the Artificer of all, Himself prepared this body in the virgin as a temple for Himself, and took it for His very own, as the instrument through which He was known and in which He dwelt. Thus, taking a body like our own, because all our bodies were liable to the corruption of death, He surrendered His body to death instead of all, and offered it to the Father. This He did out of sheer love for us, so that in His death all might die, and the law of death thereby be abolished because, having fulfilled in His body that for which it was appointed, it was thereafter voided of its power for men. This He did that He might turn again to incorruption men who had turned back to corruption, and make them alive through death by the appropriation of His body and by the grace of His resurrection. Thus He would make death to disappear from them as utterly as straw from fire.

~Athanasius (297-373), On The Incarnation

[This series of blog posts comes from a paper of mine from TEDS in Dr. Graham Cole's Theology 2 course. You can see Part 1 here.]

To begin, penal substitution and Christus victor must be defined and examined in light of Scripture. Understanding the strengths of each theory, as well as the points of tension that come to the fore when too much emphasis is given to a single theory, will assist in evaluating and formulating a coherent doctrine of the atonement that does justice to the multi-faceted work of Christ. First, the doctrine of penal substitution quite simply states that Christ’s work was both penal and substitutionary. That is, Christ became the substitute for the sins of humanity by living the life they failed to live and dying the death they deserved to die. Proponents of this theory argue that Scripture is replete with substitutionary language: for example, “Christ died for us” (Rom. 5:8), “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us” (Gal. 3:13), and “Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God” (Eph. 5:2).⁵

Yet, the idea of substitution is not only a concept found in the Pauline literature of the New Testament. Rather, Paul argues for Christ in our place out of the Biblical-theological framework established in the Old Testament sacrificial system, whereby Christ serves as the substance—the fulfillment—to which the sacrifices were pointing. For instance, Lev. 9:7 prescribes the pattern the people of Israel were to follow in order to “make atonement” for their sins, namely, by offering sacrifices to YHWH. R. W. Yarbrough correctly notes that since

God commanded sacrifice as a means of avoiding the punishment of death (e.g. Num. 18:32), and that wrongful sacrifice occasionally caused death by God’s direct act (e.g. Num. 16:35), it seems hard to avoid the conclusion that when intelligent worshippers in OT times present animals for atoning ritual slaughter they understood their sacrifices to involve an element of substitution.⁶

Therefore, when Paul speaks of Christ as a sacrifice and substitute for us (Eph. 5:2), he is in line with a rich train of Biblical-theological thought wherein “Jesus is ‘Saviour’ not in the sense of a spiritual visionary or miraculous power broker but as sacrificial victim, the just for the unjust (1 Pet. 3:18), his life poured out a ransom for many (Mark 10:45).”⁷

Not only is penal substitution substitutionary, it is also penal. In order to understand this penalty paid by Christ, a closer look at the book of Romans is in order. Chapters 1-3 of Paul’s letter to the Romans clearly emphasize that God’s wrath is poured out on sin and unrighteousness. Thus, D. A. Carson: “the flow of argument that takes us from Romans 1:18-32 to Romans 3:9-20 leaves us no escape: individually and collectively, Jew and Gentile alike, we stand under the just wrath of God, because of our sin.”⁸ Because of this, for humans to be restored to a right relationship with God, a substitute must stand under the wrath of God and take upon himself the penalty of death deserved by vile sinners. Romans 3:25-26 shows how Christ, the suffering substitute, accomplished this: he was put forward as a propitiation⁹ by his blood. Jeffrey, Ovey, and Sach recognize that “the use of [the Greek word hilaskomai] in connection with Christ’s death emphasizes that it was by Christ’s death that God’s wrath was turned aside from sinners.”¹⁰ In other words, Christ not only put himself in the place of sinners, thereby becoming their substitute, but he also bore the penalty of God’s wrath, the penalty they deserved to bear. It is in this way that Christ was a penal substitute.

5. R. E. Davies argues that the prepositions used in these verses and others in the New Testament do indeed convey the idea of substitution and that the doctrine is not a foreign concept read into Scripture by those attempting to defend a substitutionary view of the atonement. R. E. Davies, “Christ in Our Place—the Contribution of the Prepositions,” Tyndale Bulletin 21 (1970), 71-91.^↑

[This series of blog posts comes from a paper of mine from TEDS in Dr. Graham Cole's Theology 2 course.]

All theological roads lead to the atonement¹—it is literally and metaphorically the crux of the whole of theology. While individual topics in systematic theology are complex and present the theologian with many pressing issues, the doctrine of the atonement attempts to capture the way in which the Triune God (theology proper) makes right (soteriology) humanity’s (anthropology) relationship-breaking plight—sin (harmartiology)—by taking on human form (Christology), living a perfect life by the power of the Holy Spirit (pneumatology), dying, rising from the dead, and inaugurating his kingdom on earth (eschatology). Consequently, if one “gets it wrong” at any point of doctrine prior to the atonement, it is incredibly likely that her or his understanding of the atonement itself will be skewed, at best. For example, if one makes the error of viewing sin as merely a psychological problem, then an incomplete theory of the atonement, such as the exemplar theory, will be able to bear the weight of curing the problem.

Throughout the history of theology the doctrine of the atonement has been formulated into many theories which systematically describe what was happening during the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. Because of this development, there has been considerable debate as to which theory best captures the essence of the atonement—which theory stands at the center of Christ’s redemptive work. This series of blog posts will survey two of the major theories of the atonement—penal substitution and Christus victor—in order to surmise which formulation ought to be given pride of place when speaking of the work of Christ. Moreover, this paper will propose that any proper evaluation of the doctrine of the atonement must be done in light of God’s Trinitarian mission for the world, with special reference to Biblical theology, exhibited in the threefold offices (munus triplex) of Christ². It will be argued that while no individual story³ of the atonement has the resources to explain the breadth of what was taking place in the work of Christ, a complex—or “kaleidoscopic”⁴—story will lend the greatest explanatory power as well as the most Biblically faithful and historically rooted understanding of Christ’s work for us and for our salvation that will in turn lead to a Spirit-led life of faith for the believer.

1. For the purposes of this paper the theological concept of “atonement” is understood to signify in a broad sense the process by which God is in Christ reconciling all things to himself (Col. 1:20) and in a narrow sense the means by which this process unfolds, namely, God making peace “by the blood of his cross” (Col. 1:20). This definition seems compatible with the definition provided by the Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible, in which Henri Blocher writes, “‘Atonement’ (at-one-ment) has been, since the sixteenth century, the main English word for that which ensures right or happy relations with the Deity and removes obstacles to that end” (Henri Blocher “Atonement,” Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible, ed. Kevin J. Vanhoozer (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Academic, 2005), 72-76). ^↑

4. Joel Green proposes a “kaleidoscopic” view of the atonement in Joel Green, “The Kaleidoscopic View of the Atonement,” The Nature of the Atonement (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006). While this paper’s proposal will differ significantly from the approach taken by Green, the image of a kaleidoscope is fitting for how one ought to view the atonement.^↑

As I previously mentioned, I am waging a war on the time-saving excesses in modern America that are ruining the lives of men (and women) everywhere, though most of them are unaware. In this first post I want destroy Gillette and Schick by looking at the art of ” traditional wetshaving.” No, for those of you wondering, scraping a 5 blade vibrating razor from WalMart that is almost indistinguishable from the tool your wife uses to shave her legs is neither manly nor traditional wetshaving. Rubbing alcohol smelling, nearly intolerable, cold gel on your face is no way to start a morning, nor is it a way to treat your face. However, if you enjoy looking like you were just teepeed by a group of junior highers when you finish shaving, then by all means, stay with the Bic. Or if you enjoy having your face look and feel like the raw ground beef at your local grocer, then this treatise is certainly not for you.

No, this post is for the man who senses that there is more to his daily shaving ritual than what he has been led to believe; this post is for the man who enjoys a real blade, not a piece of mass-produced plastic masquerading as a shaving tool. So please, read on. [Note: If you use an electric "razor" you may be beyond hope, but please do everything in your power to save your soul and read on!]

Let me first describe what I mean by “traditional wetshaving” and describe to you the tools of this lost art. Traditional wetshaving is basically using water, some sort of shave soap or cream applied by a badger shave brush, and a wicked sharp razor to remove the hair from your face (more on these tools shortly). You may be thinking to yourself, “Hmmm, sounds like what I do with my Gillette shaving set everyday, minus the brush.” IT’S NOT…PERIOD, no questions asked.

Before I discuss the tools of the trade, let me give you several reasons for pursuing traditional wetshaving:

1- You will have a better shave…PERIOD
2- You will save money on blades
3- You will help the environment by using fewer blades and aerosol cans
4- Wetshaving is manly and retro
5- You can give the man the finger by avoiding large corporations
6- You can establish a daily routine that will add significance to your life
7- You will have a cherished tradition (and valuable tools) that you can pass on to your son as you teach him the lost art of traditional wetshaving.

So let’s start with the water. Dragging a razor across your face is dangerous business, and dry faces do not mix well with sharp blades. So, you need plenty of hot water. They say that it is best to shave as soon as you get out of the shower, as the steam and water soften your beard and open the pores of your skin making for an ideal landscape for your razor to navigate. Water is also important for making a shave lather, which is will discuss next. If you have soft water, you are in luck, because it makes for great lather which makes for a great shave; if you have hard water, it will take some work, but don’t be discouraged.

Next, we can talk about the shaving cream or soap. Gillette shave gel and Barbasol foam are not shaving cream…they just aren’t. They are made with cheap ingredients and leave your face feeling stick and tingly (because of the alcohol). Plus, they just don’t work. Real shave soap/cream is made with high quality ingredients, smell terrific, makes great shaving lather, and nourishes your face. Here are some links to what in my mind are the best shave creams/soaps available, which, while they may be a little more expensive, will last for a long time.

What I Use: Truefitt & Hill Lavender Shaving Cream ($30)
Best Place to Start: Truefitt & Hill Shaving Cream & Balm Sample Pack (for $9 you get to sample all the different scents of the best shaving cream available to figure out your favorite!)
Honorable Mentions: Truefitt & Hill Luxury Shaving Soap ($42), The Art of Shaving Shaving Cream ($22)

To make good use of a good shaving cream, you need a good badger hair brush. Badger hair is soft and holds tons of water, which will come in hand as you try to whip up a good lather. For those of you who have not used a badger brush before, you are in for a treat. Applying shaving cream with a badger brush is like getting a face massage; the bristles lift the whiskers away from the skin providing the foundation for an incredible shave. Invest in a good brush and it will last you a long time!

What I Use: Vulfix #374 Super Badger Shaving Brush ($55)
Best Place To Start: I’d recommend not skimping on the brush, but if you must, this would be the place to start)
Honorable Mention: Carlton Super Badger Hair Brush: Ivory ($69), The Art Of Shaving Pure Badger Brush ($55)

Moving now to the most important part of your shaving routine, let me talk about the razor. There are two basic ways you can go here: the straight razor or the safety razor. The straight razor is basically a long, sharp knife (think Sweeney Todd) while a safety razor, which some of your Fathers or Grandfathers may have had, is the precursor to the modern day cartridge razor. I’d recommend not jumping to the straight razor right from the start, unless you have a steady hand and don’t mind some serious blood. The safety razor, on the other hand, is a good start. It uses high quality (and cheap!) blades with a guard to keep you from slicing open your face. Plus, once you feel the weight of this piece of metal in your hand, you will understand the difference between the mass market toy and this real man’s tool.

What I Use: Merkur Futur Adjustable Safety Razor ($57)
Best Place To Start: Merkur 33C Classic Safety Razor ($26)
Blades: I use Merkur Futur Double Edge Blades ($5 for 10), or you can try a sample pack to figure out which blades you like the most ($14 for 50 blaes)

If You Can Handle The Straight Razor: Feather Razor “Artist Club DX Special Teakwood” ($250) or
Dovo Classic 4/8 Black Straight Razor ($78)

Now for the odds and ends. A good shave begins with pre-shave oil and ends with a good aftershave balm. The oil will prep your face so that the blade smoothly glides over your skin with little resistance, leading to fewer annoying bumps, and aftershave balm will relieve and sooth your skin (afterall, you did just drag a razor over it!).

What I Use: Truefitt & Hill Ultimate Comfort Aftershave Balm ($32) and Truefitt & Hill Ultimate Comfort Pre-Shave Oil ($30)
Honorable Mention: The Art of Shaving Aftershave Balm ($38) and The Art of Shaving Pre-Shave Oil ($22)

So here is the process:

1- Before you hop in the shower start soaking your shave brush in hot water.
2- After you finish your shower, leave your face wet and begin preparing your shave lather.
3- Use your favorite shave cream or soap and your pre-soaked (and now warm) shave brush to whip up a luxurious lather that will keep the blade form tearing up your face.
4- Keep plenty of warm water on your face and apply the lather with the brush in circular motions to lift the whiskers from your face (you may want to apply pre-shave oil to your face for an extra smooth shave).
5- Leave some warm water in the sink to rinse off your razor as you shave.
6- After you finishing lathering up, let the cream or soap sit on your face for a minute or two to soften your beard.
7- With a sharp razor blade, lightly shave with the grain, tightening the skin with your free hand as you go along, making short strokes and regularly rinsing your razor.
8- If you want a wicked close shave, re-lather your face and shave against the grain.
9- Rinse your face with cold water to remove and left over lather and to close the pores.
10- Pat your face dry with a towel and generously apply a quality after shave balm to sooth your face.

There you have it. Sure, this routine takes a little time, but it is absolutely worth it. It also takes practice. A safety razor with quality blades or a straight razor is nothing like the toy you may have used before; they are dangerous pieces of equipment that will reward the patient user. Now, turn on your favorite music that corresponds to your daily mood, and prepare for a luxurious shave in the comfort of your own home!

Let me close with some links in case you are interested in pursuing this further:

Truefitt & Hill–legendary; the best of the best.

The Art of Shaving–a close second.

The Badger and Blade–everything you could ever want to know about traditional wetshaving (and then some!) is found on this online forum.

ClassicShaving.com–huge retailer with good prices and great selection.

As I have been growing ever so enthralled with the ancient/modern approach to church, worship, and theology, I have also found myself being pulled in the direction of what I call retro/modern living as well. What I mean is that there is just something about doing things the old fashioned way. There is something to be said for the way people did things in the past; yet, as Americans living with the conveniences of modern life we feel the tension to have the latest and greatest time-saving device or accessory that will enable us to add more productivity to our daily routines. However, in so doing, we lose the routines that provide the opportunity for rhythms of grace to find their way into our lives. Moments of significance are thereby transformed (or better: deconstructed) into mere to do lists to be crossed off a page, or more likely, to be deleted from a sticky note on the computer’s desktop.

As I evaluate my own life I worry that 30 years down the road I may look back upon my “time saving” embrace of modern technology, my excessive connectedness to social media, and my myopic pursuit getting things done and regret having not treasured existential moments of significance. I don’t want to be the guy who has to tell the younger people surrounding him on his deathbed to love their families, to kiss their wives, and to enjoy the time they have been given because I have failed to treasure these important pleasures that are a part of the gift of life.

In pursuit of this type of life wholeness, I have discovered (or been led to) several wonderful luxuries that I wish to share with you. These are not overtly “spiritual” insights, nor are they directly related to theology; yet, one would be amiss in failing to grasp the grace of God in these tasks.

Let me clearly set out my targets in this series of posts:

1) Post #1 will deal with Gillette and Schick (they don’t deserve a link) and the war they have waged upon the faces of men and women everywhere (women, only because of the men by whom they are kissed). These companies have robbed men of the joys of shaving and have introduced them to inferior products having thereby compromised the integrity of the modern men. They must be stopped; our faces must find relief.

2) Post #2 will deal with Starbucks and Folgers (again, no linkage) and the soulless product they attempt to market as “coffee.” Seriously, packets of “instant coffee” (via?)? What does “instant coffee” even mean? That is like speaking about Barack Obama the conservative. I understand that soldiers on the front lines have used socks as coffee filters, but let me be clear: the foulest sock of World War Two could not make Folgers or Starbucks taste any worse than they alreaday do. They must be stopped; our tastebuds deserve a symphony, not Flo Rida’.

3) Post #3 will attack the Bic corporation, who have, in my estimation, given people everywhere good reason to abandon the art of writing and flee to their keyboards. Gloppy ink, smudges, and 10-packs of pens for less than $1 have no place in America. These “writing instruments” provide the foundation for my fourth post.

4) Post #4 will wage war on Facebook, Twitter, and email. While each of these mediums has some worth, I will argue that they have robbed many Americans of the joy of writing (with good writing tools!) on paper (good paper, not the stuff you get at WalMart!) a thank you note or letter (put in a wax-sealed envelope!) to be sent through the mail. There is something about receiving a letter that no Tweet, Facebook message, or email could ever capture.

All in all, I hope to liberate the masses from the oppression of modern America. I want to introduce you to several joys that have a place in my life and point me towards the grace of God in everyday living. I will provide links for curious readers to browse in order to start down the path of freedom towards a sort of shalom in the daily routines of life.

I hope to help make moments which have lost their significance significant once again.