We have tried to put together a course that engages with some of the recent conversations about atonement and our theology of the cross. Some things people have said about the cross have been a little controversial (and we like being controversial), but there is much to learn from reflecting on the different ways the bible and theologians over the centuries have spoken about the cross.

We are particularly thankful for the work of Tom Smail in his two books on this subject: Windows on the Cross and Once and for All. This course is based quite heavily on these books but tries to offer an opportunity for disciples of Jesus to spend some time reflecting on the meaning of cross. We have tried to use movie clips and other things from popular culture and to give people space to reflect on as much as debate some of the issues.

We ran this course for the first time in a multi-denominational setting during Lent and found a very positive response to the course. We also were encouraged by the way people engaged with this material. You can download the complete course for FREE from our new resources site talk2.org.uk.

We simply offer you this material, hoping you may find it useful in your setting.

The Archbishop argued that the present European mindset has become characterised by an obsession with the rights of individuals and self-creation. A mindset that is today expressed in European art and culture. The archbishop challenged this mindset as being one that belongs to a prosperous minority in the world and reflected on the internal strain and immense inequality it has produced. His observation is that this mindset has become hostile to faith, despite the historic influence of Christianity in shaping Europe in the first place. He seemed to be suggesting that the unhealthy mindset that has thus been formed is a direct result of losing the faith half of the brain!

So one way of understanding the ambiguous impact of Europe on our world is to see the modern European mind as the detached half of a complex reality that Christianity helped to bring to birth.

He also made some interesting comments about two alternative mindsets that the European has been challenged by in the last century – Marxism and Islam, as he tried to suggest how recovering the heritage might make for a better world. But this half of his lecture didn’t seem to be quite as clear or well developed.

He hinted at how faith in God, a power outside of ourselves, should lead us to think in terms of obligations to others rather than the rights of individuals and freedom for others rather than for ourselves, but I’m not sure he convinced us or showed how this could work better than Marxism which the West has rejected.

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.