The Cross and Caricatures
31 Aug 2007
I few days ago I came across an anglican web site stuffed full of great (and free) resources and articles (including N T Wright, Tom Smail, Elaine Storkey etc), called Fulcrum.
I downloaded from there and printed, then read early this morning an article by N T Wright, titled ‘The Cross and the Carictures’. In terms of the various arguments about penal substitution, the major players, texts and issues over the past few years, it is the best piece I have ever read.
In it, N T Wright draws on popular books (Steve Chalke & Alan Mann), and heavy weight academic books (in particular the much endorsed new book from Oak Hill College Pierced for Our Transgressions: Rediscovering the Glory of Penal Substitution) and UK newspapers coverage of the discussion, to provide a response, his thoughts and assessments of the hullabaloo that has taken place. If you have an interest in this ongoing discussion, it is well worth a read.
Some things I gleaned from the article, in no particular order:
1. Meal vs Theory: Jesus explained his death with a meal, not a theory. There is a lot to understand about that meal, but it is the meal that is most important.
2. Caricatures: Too often those who attack penal substitution do so with crude caricatures of the doctrine, or those who defend it embrace a caricature. Penal Substitution wasn’t invented by Anselm, and just used by Calvin. It is also not just about an angry god killing his son out of pique and revenge.
3. Deeper: Penal substitution is part of the bible, church fathers, medieval church leaders and reformers, in a much deeper and broader context than many give it. In particular Christus Victor puts penal substitution in such a deep/thick context. There has been much that has been missing from understanding the substitutionary nature of the cross.
4. Labeling: There is a failure to read the bible, to read what people really say, and write, where instead too often, we deal with what we want to find in the caricatures, wanting to associate people as good and bad, without ever really trying to understand them.
And a couple of thoughts from that:
1. Identity Issues/Self & Agency: The caricatures do produce a picture of God that postmodern people find hard to get beyond and we must deal with that. Yet post-modernity with the liberated actualized self has no notion of identity with others, of the shared failure of our lives to be ordered around God’s kingdom and reality, and the need for that to be dealt with. The selfish post-modern/modern self is unable to see itself on the cross.
The cross is not about an angry God taking things out on his son, but a God of love having to deal with the anything that destroys the image of his creation, and of providing that way himself. That includes the need for me to go to the cross, that I am part of the problem. And the Jesus on the cross, is God on the cross, a trinitarian understanding of Christ’s life and death, which reveals the indvidualist way we so often view the cross. There is no condemnation for the post-modern self, yet the cross reminds us that there is.
2. Biblical Formation: Will we let the bible and the story of God form us, and our understandings, or will we let out cultural narratives and exegesis shape our beliefs and ways we do church. The knee jerk and shallow condemnations of people who question penal substitution theories, reveal the power plays of the church culture that shapes our understanding of the gospel. The equally shallow rejection of penal substitution show the formation of the Gospel around a cultural and sociological agenda, rather than a biblical one.
3. Resources: I made a longer blog post with a list of resources on atonement here, if you want to read some more.
Tagged: Atonement, Christus-Victor, Fulcrum, N-T-Wright, Penal-Substitution, Resources, Theology
10 comments
Trackback
Comment by Paul
10.35 am on 31 Aug 2007
thanks Jase, it reminds me how we often want to blame god for death, even of his own son and deny our own human orientation of selfishness and involvement in the world around us.
Comment by Jason
11.22 pm on 31 Aug 2007
I was reading some OT passages today, after this article, and was struck by the biblical world-view of seeing ourselves as part of the problems of the world, at the heart of understanding individuality, and how that compares to the modern/postmodern view that we are inherently ‘good’, and it’s others that are the problem. We seem to have lost something along the way.
Comment by Jorn
9.43 am on 2 Sep 2007
Yes, I think you are right. We have lost the understanding of how big and deep roted the problem of sin really is. The story of Israel and the Church tells me that.
Lewis helps me with Aslan, he´s the true friend of the children, they can hug him and feel his varm fur but at the same time, he´s the Other and quite frightening.
Comment by Duncan McFadzean
7.29 pm on 31 Aug 2007
Thanks Jason, I got given the Penal Subsitution Oak Hill book by someone recently, but had been kind of unexcited about wading through it – maybe this article can be a good entry point for me to the disagreements. It’s not an issue I’ve spent a lot of time discussing but I understand it’s been a source of concern for others.
Comment by Paul Fromont
10.04 pm on 31 Aug 2007
Jason, there was some significant critique of Wright’s paper when it came out. While agreeing with you about Wright’s paper, I think one of two valid concerns were raised about it. Sorry, I can’t think of the exact locations of the critiques. There may be links from the “Thinking Anglican’s” blog:
http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/
Have a good weekend.
Comment by Jason
11.13 pm on 31 Aug 2007
Hi Paul, if you can remember the critiques, or locate them that would be interesting.
Comment by andy goodliff
7.53 pm on 2 Sep 2007
the authors of pierced by our transgressions respond to wright here:
http://piercedforourtransgressions.com/content/view/107/51/
and link to some other responses
Andy
Comment by Jason
4.47 pm on 3 Sep 2007
Thanks for that Andy,
Jason
Comment by Jörn
10.41 am on 7 Sep 2007
I think this is key in Wrights text: “The biblical doctrine of God’s wrath is rooted in the doctrine of God as the good, wise and loving creator, who hates – yes, hates, and hates implacably – anything that spoils, defaces, distorts or damages his beautiful creation, and in particular anything that does that to his image-bearing creatures.
If God does not hate racial prejudice, he is neither good nor loving.
If God is not wrathful at child abuse, he is neither good nor loving.
If God is not utterly determined to root out from his creation, in an act of proper wrath and judgment, the arrogance that allows people to exploit, bomb, bully and enslave one another, he is neither loving, nor good, nor wise.”
Comment by Eli Dorman
8.45 pm on 8 Sep 2007
Penal having to do with “penalty bearing” and substitution having to do with standing in another’s place. Jesus therefore is our “penalty bearing substitute,” on a simple level he stands in our place and takes on the punishment for sin that rightfully belongs to us. Therefore, from God’s perspective there is no wrath left for those who are in Christ. This, for me, gets at the vast scope of the grace of God going to immense lengths to win back his image bearing creation from a life away from his loving heart. Wow, this is a love story if there ever was one! Do you think the argument against the validity of the penal substitution theory is philosophical only or are there some valid theological critiques of the theory?
Comments are now closed.