The Atonement Wars: Whose Atonement?

The Atonement Wars rage on in a blog post from last month of Ken Silva's on Al Mohler. It seems that Ken Silva and Al Mohler would divide the church over their pet theory of the Atonement: The Penal Substitution theory of the Atonement. (Yeah you heard me right Ken, I just called the Penal Substitution model of the Atonement a theory and it is. It is just one theological theory of the Atonement out of many---so get to cracking on calling me out as a heretic because if you don't I'm sure these guys or these guys will. This post was written just for you and with you in mind).

Al Mohler goes so far as to blasphemously with idolatry proclaim:

Let’s get this straight; [in the penal substitutionary atonement] we’re either seeing the truth, or a lie. This either is the Gospel, or, it is not. The dividing line is abundantly clear; we either believe that the sum and substance of the Gospel is that a holy and righteous God—Who must demand a full penalty for our sin—both demands the penalty and provides the penalty, through His Own self-substitution in Jesus Christ—the Son—whose perfect obedience, and perfectly accomplished atonement, has purchased for us all that is necessary for our salvation—has met the full demands of the righteousness and justice of God against our sin.

We either believe that, or we do not. If we do not, then we believe that the Gospel can be nothing more than some kind of message intended to reach some emotive level in the human being, so that the human being would think better of God, and might want to associate with Him. Or, we would transform all of these categories in the theological into the merely therapeutic, and argue that the whole point of the atonement is that we would come to terms with our own problems, and come to understand that there are resources for the repair of our troubled souls beyond which we previously knew.

Dr. Mohler gets it quite wrong actually as Jesus Himself is the Gospel period not someone's pet and favorite Atonement theory. Dr. Schreiner correctly states that The Penal Substitution theory of the Atonement is not the only teaching in scripture regarding Jesus' death. Although I believe that The Penal Substitution theory of the Atonement is one of many valid theories of the Atonement, I don't believe it is the only theory. In fact I believe that those who hold up The Penal Substitution theory of the Atonement as the only theory of Atonement grossly misrepresent God's character as revealed in Christ and therefore distort the true meaning of the Gospel. Harry Emerson Fosdick my personal hero under Jesus of course said it best when he stated:

Were you to talk to that fundamentalist preacher, he doubtless would insist that you must believe in the "substitutionary" theory of atonement - namely, that Jesus suffered as a substitute for us punishment due us for our sins. But can you imagine a modern courtroom in a civilized country where an innocent man would be deliberately punished for another man's crime? … [S]ubstitutionary atonement … came a long way down in history in many a penal system. But now it is a precivilized barbarity; no secular court would tolerate the idea for a moment; only in certain belated theologies is it retained as an explanation of our Lord's death… Christ's sacrificial life and death are too sacred to be so misrepresented.---Harry Emerson Fosdick, Dear Mr. Brown (Harper & Row, 1961), p. 136.

I also believe Brian McLaren raises a good point as well:

Theory of Atonement
Could you elaborate on your personal theory of atonement? If God wanted to forgive us, why didn�t he just forgive us? Why did torturing Jesus make things better? This is such an important and difficult question. I�d recommend, for starters, you read �Recovering the Scandal of the Cross� (by Baker and Green). There will be a sequel to this book in the next year or so, and I�ve contributed a chapter to it.

Short answer: I think the gospel is a many faceted diamond, and atonement is only one facet, and legal models of atonement (which predominate in western Christianity) are only one small portion of that one facet.

Dallas Willard also addresses this issue in �The Divine Conspiracy.� Atonement-centered understandings of the gospel, he says, create vampire Christians who want Jesus for his blood and little else. He calls us to move beyond a �gospel of sin management� � to the gospel of the kingdom of God. So, rather than focusing on an alternative theory of atonement, I�d suggest we ponder the meaning and mission of the kingdom of God.

This is why these two theories need their proper place along side of the Penal Substitution theory for a more holistic understanding of the Atonement:

The Moral Influence theory

This view of the atonement limits Christ's death to a radical example of His love that influences sinners morally but does not pay any price on their behalf. God's justice demands no payment for sin. First Peter 2:21 is the primary text for this view. "Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example." But just a few verses later (v. 24) Peter refers to the subsitutionary aspect of the cross, "He Himself bore our sins in his body on a tree…" Even in this primary passage regarding the moral influence of Christ's death, it can't stand alone without the central message of substitution.

Christus Victor

This view attempts to limit Christ's work on the cross to the defeating of the powers of evil. Indeed, Col. 2:15 assets; "He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in Him." Indeed Christ's death defeated the powers of darkness. But directly preceding this statement in verse 14, Paul points to the substitutionary aspect of the cross by stating, "By canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This He set aside, nailing it to the cross." Here as in other contexts, PSA stands in the central place.

These two views (Christus Victor and the Moral Influence Theory) are indeed presented in scripture. But they can't stand alone. These views are only complementary to the sacrificial death of Christ. Someone over the course of my studies referred to the various presentations of the cross as a choir in which all the biblical references to the cross are harmonious. I would like to adjust the metaphor and suggest that the sacrificial death of Christ is the "soloist" and the other biblical references to the cross are "background singers" that enhance the soloist's voice.

Brian McLaren At Campbell University

Dr. Jonas introducing Brian McLaren.

Yesterday I went back to my Alma Mater Campbell University to hear Brian McLaren speak at Butler Chapel about Postmodernism and the Church. Here is the program from yesterday's events:



This was part of The Reavis Ministry Lectures which is part of the Ministers Continuing Education Program at Campbell. The first session was about the hurricanes of change within human history. Here are the slides that Brian used during the sessions---give or take a few minor differences:

Emerging Missional Church

View more presentations from brianmclaren.

Me in front of Butler Chapel.

Brian basically discussed how the changes of history effect the way that we think about things and the world around us. He began with writing followed by the invention of the printing press and last the computer and how all of these inventions revolutionized the way that information is communicated and received. Another important theme touched upon was the militaristic language used in Christendom---for example see: Baptists Today Blogs: Warriors for Jesus?. Brian discussed finding a new way of thinking about faith in light of I Peter 3:15-16. Also of interest is how the word Gospel and Kingdom of God in Christian speak are subversions of their original meanings. In Greek εὐαγγέλιον(evangelion) originally meant the good news of the Βασιλεία (basilea) the kingdom or empire of Caesar and this was spread primarily by military conquest. For further research on this concept see: God and Empire: Jesus Against Rome, Then and Now.

I was hoping to get Brian to sign one of his books for me and meet him in person as he is one of my Facebook friends, but didn't get a chance. Unfortunately we missed the second session in the afternoon as well as yesterday was a joint purpose visit. We dropped my grandmother Helen off in Dunn on the way to Campbell and had to get back to help her sort through some more stuff she left at her old house. She just moved to Wilmington last Monday to be close to us. (I found two old family bibles while I was there---Helen's father's bible and my late grandfather Hank's mother's bible which was neat). However, I did get by to the new Convocation Center to see my late grandfather Hank's baseball Hall Of Fame plaque:



However for those of you wondering about the afternoon session---here is a Campbell Divinity student's impression of some of what was discussed during the second session:

During the afternoon session, McLaren talked about hell. He believes the doctrine of hell is antithetical to the cross. In other words, he does not believe in a literal hell. I would love to explore this thought further, but I have two exams next week, my friend Debra is coming to visit tomorrow, and I’m going to the U2 concert this weekend – no time to think about hell today! So for now, I will leave you with this bold prayer:

“Loving God, if I love thee for hope of heaven, then deny me heaven; if I love thee for fear of hell, then give me hell; but if I love thee for thyself alone, then give me thyself alone. Amen.” - Dr. Samuel Wells, Dean of Duke Chapel - 12/10/2006

Also Brian wrote on his Blog:

On hell - You're right that I don't follow the conventional teaching on hell as eternal conscious torment for all nonChristians. But that doesn't mean that I don't believe the Bible: it means that I don't believe many of us have rightly interpreted the Bible on this subject. If you're interested in exploring why I would say that, you might be interested in reading a book I wrote on the subject - The Last Word and the Word After That. And my upcoming book will actually go into this as well.

All in all, it was an interesting day and great to be back on campus at Campbell. And one final thought comes from Kevin Ritter's Blog:

Thanks Brian for recognizing a difference in us. I am excited about the future God has for us also. Keep up the good work CBF! God be with you on the Journey! Kevin

I'd also like to thank Brian for all that he shares and does for the Kingdom of God both here and not yet.

There Is Something Very Wrong With This Picture

Thanks to Ruckmanism.Org:

Can you believe this? The latest book by Peter Ruckman features a painting on the front cover of the KJV dying on the cross instead of Christ. Click here to see the cover.

I found the link for Ruckmanism.Org on the Fundamentalist version of Wikipedia: The Ministry Of EJ Hill & Friends' article on Peter Ruckman. They are right on Ruckman, but you should check out what they say about Billy Graham:

Classification
Abortionist [1|3] - Ecumenical [2|7|8] - False Teacher [1] - Freemason [4|5|6]

I wonder how anyone in their right mind could call Billy Graham an abortionist? Another article to check out is the one on Brian McLaren, if you can stomach it. Ahh....the joys of late night web browsing.

Anyways, if you got yourself with something more refreshing: The Rev's Rumbles: America's 'Emerging Church:' Will a New Post-Evangelical Christianity Reflect More Tolerant Views?, since the retired Rev. Anderson gave me a shout out:The Rev's Rumbles: Todd Friel Responds To Dr. Tiller's Murder---I figured I'd return the compliment.

Interesting Quotes

Brian McLaren on Christian Nationalism:

When people tell me that we are or have been a Christian nation, I want to ask, "When?" Was it in the colonial era or during westward expansion, when we began stealing the lands of the Native Americans, making and breaking treaties, killing wantonly, and justifying our actions by the Bible? Was it in the era of slavery or segregation, when again, we used the Bible to justify the unjustifiable? Was it in more recent history, when we dropped the first nuclear bomb and killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, when we overthrew democratically elected governments in the Cold War era, when we plundered the environment without concern for the birds of the air or flowers of the field, or when we sanctioned or turned a blind eye to torture earlier this decade? Was it earlier this week, when I turned on the TV or radio and heard people scapegoating immigrants and gay people and Muslims?

---thanks to Mainstream Baptist: Brian McLaren on Christian Nationalism.


Oscar Romero On Pluralism In The Church:

A healthy pluralism is needed. We don't want to force everything into the same mold. Uniformity is different from unity. Unity means pluralism, with everyone respecting how others think, and among all of us, creating a unity that is greater than just my way of thinking.---May 29, 1977.

You, with your charismatic movement; you, with your Cursillo movement of Christianity; you, with your community studying catechism; you, with your traditional thoughts; you, with your progressive thoughts, why do you do this? Do you defend what you do because it is comfortable? Then you are going the wrong way. This is not the right thing to do. Do you do it to serve God sincerely? Well do it this way and try to understand others who are doing what they are doing for God. This is true pluralism in the church.---September 17, 1978.

---pgs. 3 and 68 of Through The Year With Oscar Romero: Daily Meditations .

See also: “A bishop will die,…”.