Sunday, April 29, 2007
Theology - penal substitution of atonement
It's a while since I blogged much theology, but things are settling down at home (church with Jo, more breastfeeding today - which went well - a long walk with Jo on my back and with the dog - not on my back, etc.), and I took the time to read an article by Bishop Tom Wright in the "Church Times about the doctrine of penal substitution atonement. There's currently a major argument going on within the evangelical parts of the Church of England around whether penal substitution is the only doctrine of substitution which should be accepted, and how severe a version of the doctrine should be adopted.In fact, there's been something of a split within the evangelical parts of the CofE. One (Baptist) evangelical, whose book "The Lost Message of Jesus" has many adherents, is Steve Chalke. He rejected one understanding of penal substitionary atonement as "a vengeful father, punishing his Son for an offence he has not even committed." "The fact is that the cross isn't a form of cosmic child abuse".
Well, of course it isn't. First of all, let me say that I do find this particular doctrine of atonement useful. It's one of several that I find helpful, in fact, but I feel that it's often oversimplified. For a start, talking about the Father the Son in the way that Chalke is quoted as doing seems to be grossly negligent of the doctrine of the Trinity. The Father and the Son aren't just a father and a son - they're part of the Trinity: cosubstantial, coeternal. The Father doesn't force the cross on the Son: it's a joint decision by all parts of the Trinity - the Spirit as well.
But Tom Wright's view, which is opposed to Chalke's, is one with which I also can't hold. The problem the Wright seems to have with rejection of the "strong" view of penal subs titution is that it rejects the view of God's wrath. Wright is very much in favour of a theology which highlights God's wrath. This I find very difficult. He writes "...God's wrath is the necessary outworking of his love. If God does not hate slavery, child-abuse and the exploitation of the poor; and if God is not determined to condemn them and rid his world of them, then God's judgement is neither good nor loving." Well, I agree with the second of those sentnences, but really don't need to take on the first. Wrath is usually associated with vengeance, and this I reject. At no point in his article does Wright reference the core gospel ("good news") for me: God is love. S/He can be horrified by, saddened by, angered by, despair at all the things that Wright mentions, but can do so without wreaking vengeance. Wrath - violent, almost uncontrolled anger - is not what I associate with the God I know who is revealed in his Son in the New Testament. A God who allows his Son to take on the burden (the uncontrollably oppressive, the unbearably painful burden) of our sins for the sake of love: that is the God I know.
The lost message is worth reading though!
Hope all is well. Good blog post btw! Tom Wright is an interesting character- I like a lot of what he writes, but question other stuff...
<< Home
blogs4god
