Army of Priests

Given some of my comments previously I thought it would be appropriate to clarify my position on penal substitution. Penal Substitution is one of many “models” of the atonement which has become more controversial over the last few years as many Christians (particularly those from the emerging conversation which I consider myself a part of) have begun to challenge its long standing (since the middle-ages) position as the core of Christian doctrine.

As a starting point I believe that the cross is multi-faceted in the way it deals with sin and heals our world. As such I do not believe it is a case of choosing one model at the expense of the others. I believe all (or most) “models” of the atonement should be taken into our understanding. However, I also believe penal substitutionary atonement has been over-emphasised at the expense of the other “facets” and needs to be put back in its appropriate place. I believe this emphasise is damaging in that penal substitutionary atonement has the potential to distort our view of wrath if not analysed properly.

An explanation of Penal Subsitutionary Atonement (aka Satisfaction Theory or Propiationary Atonement) goes as follows: The wages of sin are death. God, because He is just and cannot go against His own nature requires that all sin must be paid for (thus the existence of hell). Jesus death satisfies God’s justice thus allowing Him to forgive and enables us to escape the penalty that was waiting for us. In essence, Jesus death allows God to be both just and merciful at the same time.

My Problems with this View:

1. Penal Substitutionary Atonement changes God instead of Man

In this view it is God who has a problem that must be dealt with in order for us to escape hell. Jesus death changes God, enabling Him to pardon us from our sin. But this is counter-intuitive: surely the problem is with us and not God.

2. Penal Substitutionary Atonement separates the Father from the Son

In this model Jesus is a separate entity to the Father who, by dying, can satisfy the Father. The Son has come to earth to save us from the Father.

3. Penal Substitutionary Atonement separates Jesus death from His life and resurrection

According to this idea Jesus came merely to die as His death alone could satisfy His purposes. Different meanings must be given to His life and resurrection in order for them to have purpose. The incarnation is no longer viewed as a single ‘package’.

Biblical Basis

What is biblical about this view is that Jesus death was the result of Him bearing the consequences of our sin so that we don’t have to. This idea is threaded throughout the New Testament so I wont bother listing verses here. It should be noted that this idea doesn’t need to be carried on the back of this model.

What is unbiblical about this view is the idea that God’s wrath requires satisfaction. This view is based around the thought that our actions can earn favour from God and is inherently pagan in origin. In Pagan mythology people would sacrifice animals to the gods so that they would avert disaster or have good crops. This is what we call propiation.

But Hebrew sacrifices (and the bible in general) emphasise expiation. Expiation is the process by which we are cleansed of sin as opposed to changing God’s view of that sin. The change is in us instead of God.

Justice

However, the big issue here is our understanding of Justice. We in the western world have a very stage idea of justice. Our court systems are based around the idea of punishing someone so that their pain will satisfy the victim’s (and nation’s) vengeance. Courts are meant to insure that the perpetrators of a crime suffer as much as their victims have. “An eye for an eye” is the basis of the idea.

But as Gandhi said, continuing Jesus tradition started in Mathew 5:38-42, “An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind.” Our legal system suffers from the logical fallacy that two wrongs make a right. Perpetrating evil in an attempt to destroy evil only ever leads to ever growing spirals of violence. War cannot create peace. It is based on the flawed myth of redemptive violence.

We western Christians, coming from a modern world view, then read this warped understanding of justice back into the biblical text. This is a mistake. God’s justice, rather than being the execution of his vengeance, is focused on redemption and reconciliation. Earthly (or vigilante?) justice is executed when a young man who killed a family’s son is sent to jail for life for what he has done. God’s justice is executed when that grieving family takes that broken man under their wings as their new son. It happens when wounds are healed and relationships are restored to their Godly standing – based in mutual love and respect. Justice happens when relationships are “justified” – put into right alignment.

Consider the close relationship between mercy and justice in the following passages: Isaiah 1:17, 30:18, Jeremiah 21:12, Zechariah 7:9, and Matthew 12:18-21. And read Jesus own mission statement in Luke 4:18-19: “The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favour.” You’ll notice that the entire statement is about reconciliation. To release prisoners rather than put them in jail. To fix things rather than make them worse.

However, I wouldn’t want to make the mistake of forgetting God’s wrath. It is not something I fully understand. But it is real. Sin is serious. I am convinced however that it is a part of justice – not all of justice. Perhaps Mathew 25:31-46 is a clue to understanding this.

This concept of justice runs right through the New Testament (and much of the Old). It is the reason the early Christians were strict pacifists requiring new Christians who were soldiers, along with prostitutes or judges to leave their profession (Tertullian wrote, “The divine banner and the human banner do not go together, nor the standard of Christ and the standard of the devil. Only without the sword can the Christian wage war: for the Lord has abolished the sword.” Origen wrote, “You cannot demand military service of Christians any more than you can of priests. We do not go forth as soldiers.” It should be noted however that around 160-70 AD some Christians were soldiers going against the general will of the apostles and church fathers but were not excluded from communion). Jesus death teaches us that there is something worth dying for but nothing worth killing for.

It is also why Christians had to be hospitable to even the lowest members of society. As Christ’s ambassadors they has to execute God justice and love which was reconciliation.

From this perspective we see that Christ’s death, rather than satisfying God’s sense of Justice, actually executes God’s justice by repairing the broken relationship between God and man.

For further resources on this topic I highly recommend this sermon on the atonement by Bishop Ware. My notes can be found here. Also Sharktacos at The Rebel God frequently discusses this issue.

PS: I will be trying to post something every Friday from now on (Australian Eastern Standard Time). Though with my previous record I could miss a few!

One of the major new story in Australia right now is the death of one of our soldiers in Afghanistan from a road side bomb. Naturally, and appropriately, the nation is concerned for the welfare of our troops and the two daughters and wife he left behind. But what does concern me is how this incident highlights the inequality of value we place on human life. Afghanis are killed from this war quite often yet we never hear of them except perhaps in the occasional statistic. One of our soldiers dies and it is front page news.

And if a terrorist, an enemy, dies it is a good thing.

A good thing.

No evil, no matter how necessary, is ever a good. It is always an evil. No evil, weather it benefits us or not, is ever a good. The death of a terrorist or a soldier both represent an ultimate, irrevocable failure in the human condition. We should mourn terrorist’ deaths and beg for forgiveness for the unfortunate punishment we have had to lay upon them just as we do for our own.

In Iraq we have definitive statistics for the number of coalition casualties. We have reasonable estimates for the number of Iraqi civilian deaths. But we never hear how many terrorists we are killing. It’s like they don’t count. They’re not human. Surely our armies would have some idea. To fight an enemy without any idea of their numbers or how effective our troops are is incompetent. It’s not like dead bodies move.

It’s that we don’t care. We don’t want to hear how many of them die. They don’t matter to us. Their lives are insignificant.

A person becomes our enemy when we de-humanize them so much we can no longer relate to the person we have produced in our mind. We forget that our enemies have mothers and fathers and sons and daughters. We forget they have favorite foods or colours. We forget they have feelings or dreams or concerns or prayers.

I cannot imagine what a mother feels like after her son has blown himself up on a buss filled with Israelis. Is she looked after or abandoned? Is she surprised or supportive? Where does she turn? Who can understand?

I cannot imagine what pain or ideal, hope or horror could compel a child to destroy them self. Were the brainwashed or did they choose out of free will? Did anyone advise them against it? Was there any other option to achieve what they hoped? How did they view us westerners?

And no, I cannot imagine what it is like to be holding my child after she was hit by shrapnel from a bomb and lays dead.

But can we see both sides of the problem here? A horror has been done to the victims. But a horror has also been done to the perpetrator. When we hate someone the first person we hurt is ourselves.

Christianity is the only world religion whose followers are commanded to “Love your enemies” (Mathew 5:44; Luke 6:27). Now I have no one who I want to kill right now, but there are terrorists who wish to kill me. They have made me their enemy by de-humanizing me. By forgetting I have feelings or family or hopes. They can only imagine a caricature of evil in place of a real person.

What would happen to that image if we met? What would happen if in some way I was able to show them love? Could they still hold me as an enemy?

I have searched to see if there was any Christian originations working in terrorist breeding grounds or with families of the bombers. I found none. I think this is disappointing because bombs wont win this “war on terror”. Aggression only serves to continue the ugly cycle that creates a terrorist in the first place. Only Jesus’ way – the love your enemies way – can undo this cycle. Only love of enemies can redeem the broken relationship. After all what is peace if not the absence of enemies?

For now lets pray that God reaches these people. That he comforts family members and that He gives a way out for potential bombers. And that the victims of attacks will not be even more damaged by the rage in their hearts.