Living Open Source

My blog has tended to focus more on geekery than theology, but now and then I’ll brave the world and stick my head above the parapet. In church in recent weeks we have been exploring some of the different metaphors and models used in the New Testament and by theologians to explain the mystery of the cross. I’ve relied much on Tom Smail’s Windows on the Cross, his more comprehensive Once and for all, as well as the wonderful Preaching the Atonement by Peter Stephenson and Stephen Wright. This week I faced the window of justice and inevitably the whole problem of penal substitution.

In case you hadn’t noticed, there has been a great deal of debate about the appropriateness of what is called Penal Substitution, ever since Steve Chalke referred to it as “cosmic child abuse” in his book The Lost Message of Jesus. Though in actual fact the argument goes considerably further back than that. But when Jeffery John recently declared this doctrine to be “repulsive as well as nonsensical” in a recent Radio 4 Lentern reflection, another eruption of frantic stone throwing ensued.

Personally I am not sure what was so offensive to some people of what Jeffry said, when what he said about this doctrine seems so close to the official Anglican position (see the Church of England Doctrine Commission report, The Mystery of Salvation.). Kim Fabricius gives a pretty clear summary of why penal substitution is so problematic, as does Tom Smail in the books mentioned above. Whatever penal substitution means, and it seems to mean different things to different people, the bible stops short of saying that God punished his son, or that God and his attitude towards me is changed by the cross.

Many of the arguments on other blogs, put forward by those of a more conservative position seem to me to actually be defending a ransom theory of atonement and not penal substitution. Jeffry’s words about a “price paid” would suggest he too doesn’t disagree with that model. But too many people in this debate seem to proof text penal substitution with bible references that use this ransom metaphor - imagery pulled form Ancient slave markets, that declares that the cross gives us our freedom from slavery to sin. Hallelujah! Though even then, the bible does not go as far as saying that the price is paid to anybody or anything, but through the cross the sinner walks free. They also confuse the idea of sacrifice, another window on the cross based upon temple worship rituals, with their penal models. But I cannot find the idea that God punishes Jesus anywhere in my bible, whatever people mean by penal substitution. He pays the price for our sin, he identifies fully with our falleness, he offers himself as a sacrifice, there are many ways that the bible speaks of the mystery of the cross, but Jesus does not get punished by God. There would be nothing more unjust.

Or perhaps a better way to speak of justice is as Colin Gunton put it:

“justice is done, not when a suitable punishment has been imposed upon the offender but when the judge takes upon himself the consequences of the offence and thus reconciles the offender to himself”.

I do think though that perhaps all the fuss over Jeffery John’s words are more to do with who Jeffry is rather than his theology. Apparently many of his opponents retracted their criticisms once they had actually read the transcript of the broadcast. I’m not sure why anyone would want to do a thought for the day on Radio 4 if this is how their brothers and sisters in Christ choose to analyse and criticize every detail of what they said.

At least its got people talking about the atonement over Easter. The BBC have even created a page dedicated to the discussion on Penal Substition.