Forgiveness: A Hard Word From Luther

Substitutionary Atonement Theory: Fresh Debate

I think most of the people who are reading this will know what an atonement theory is, and what this one in particular says, but I will give a brief explanation anyway.

Atonement theories are theological ideas about the meaning of the death of Jesus on the cross. This one in particular, the substitutionary theory, claims that Jesus death on the cross was him taking the punishment, God's wrath, for our sins, thus buying us forgiveness, allowing God's justice and mercy to be satisfied at the same time. I hope that does justice to it; if you want to read up on it somemore there are lots of good sites on the web. (here is a reformed theology page for example, took me 30 sec to find, looks decent, my thoughts on reformed theology notwithstanding :)

It has been a long time since I began to have doubts as to the importance evangelicals proscribe this theory of the atonement. How many evangelicals even know that, without going into actual detail, there are three major areas of atonement theories? (Christus Victor, Substitutionary, Moral Influence) We neglect teaching any kind of historical options as to this integral part of theology, and I think that must have consequences. Soon after I started questioning this particular theory of the atonement, I found out I was far from the only one who was dissatisfied with it. For example, C.S. Lewis didn't like it, to throw out a name that is held high in evangelical circles :)

I have intended, for quite some time, to do some serious reading and thinking on the issue, but I have not got to it yet. I think the time has come. This isn't really a decision out of the blue though; the time has come because the debate is already raging in public circles. Steve Chalke has ruffled quite a few feathers with his new book "The Lost Message of Jesus" which is a popularized challenge to this atonement theory, following in the footsteps of several others in the alliance tradition (most recently Hans Boersma). You can read the reaction here, Steve's response here.

I read the verses that the Alliance references in their challenge, and I have to say they are not that convincing. Some of them, i.e. 1 John 4:10, are closer than others. Still, I am reserving any conclusions until further study. If there is anythign I have learned from reading people like Wright, Thiselton, and many many other biblical commentators (it was my degree after all), its that you can't take one verse and read it out of context, put it together with multiple other verses, adn come up with a theory of the atonement. I hope to read some of the new books that are causing the controversy, as well as the older stuff from the originators of the theories. Feel free to offer any suggestions.

On another note, in the same issue, it is interesting that the alliance denies any causal connection between the penal substitution theory and being viewed as harsh and judgemental.

"It may be true, as Steve has claimed, that Evangelicals are often perceived to be harsh, censorious and ungracious, and that this can hamper evangelism. However, we do not accept Steve’s assertion of a causal or necessary link between affirming penal substitution and being harsh, censorious and ungracious."

The reason I find this interesting is as follows: Atonement theory has, among other things, been called the "cornerstone of all theology." Its importance is not denied by many, and if we stop to consider for a moment what this theory is about (the meaning of the death of Jesus), we should not have to pause long before acknowledging its central import. Combine this with another thing. We, as Christians, are supposed to be trying to be like Jesus, like God in other words, to imitate him in our actions and character. If the most important piece of our theology portrays a God who could not just forgive, but had to sacrifice his son in order to do so, should we wonder at all that Christians are known as judgemental and unforgiving?

Now, before you say anything that last questions was stacked. Basically, that question shows one of the centre points of this debate. What does the penal substitutionary theory of atonement teach us of the character of God? Some people have called it 'cosmic child abuse'... as inappropriate as that term may be, we have to consider this question.

Until I do more research, I am staying in the middle position, which is that we cannot truly or fully understand the death of Jesus on the cross. Each theory of the atonement is just that, a theory. It does not answer all the questions, nor does it give us the whole picture. They are all valid; and it is beneficial for us to know them all to some degree. Sound pluralistic? I guess it is, somewhat. This is just my position of being undecided :) I know I don't like some of what I see as the implications of the substitutionary theory, but I know there is much I don't know of these things.

So what do you think? What does the substitutionary atonement theory teach us of the character of God? is there a problem here?

Perhaps the question I wanted answered most, for starters, is this: How many theories of the atonement have you heard of?