Don't Miss Any of the Conversation

Don't miss any of the conversation! Join us at the new home of the Ancient Journey Blog
Showing posts with label reconciliation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label reconciliation. Show all posts

Monday, May 23, 2011

Seeing Christ in Others

One of the best books I've ever read is Victor Frankl's, Man's Search For Meaning. As a Jewish survivor of the holocaust, this man would have gotten a pass from the world for spending the rest of his days embittered and angry. But he saw things differently.

In the book, Frankl notes that other people can take just about everything away from us. They can take our freedom, our money, our dignity, even our life. The one thing they cannot take (which is the one thing we're often must willing to give them) is our ability to choose how we will respond to a situation.

No one can "make" us mad, distraught, happy, excited, bored, afraid, etc. Each of those emotions are generated from within and while our knee jerk reactions may be beyond our conscious control - though they are heavily influenced by the conscious choices we've made in previous situations - we are always able to choose to respond in a healthy or unhealthy fashion.

But this is difficult. So very difficult...for all of us I think. It is not easy to be truly self-differentiated (meaning we do not derive our identity from others or our relationship to them). It is hard to not allow our circumstances to dictate our emotions. Those who struggle with road rage know just how hard it can be to retrain your emotional responses to certain stimuli.

Though I often roll my eyes at her for it (dramatically and in front of her...less rude that way) my wife is right to correct me for saying "I HAVE to do" such and such, instead of "I GET to do" those things. Its minor, but it is part of training myself NOT to go negative, when a positive response is right in front of me.

When we worked together in south Louisiana, my friends Tod Vogt, Marcus Mathis and I decided to enact a “cynicism free zone” whenever we met together. It is easy (and often funny, let’s be honest) to provide a running commentary on the folly and flaws of others, to second guess their motives and to generally make ourselves out to be innocent martyrs. But typically, we aren’t any more innocent than they are evil.

Yes. There are people who have given themselves over to evil. There are other people who operate almost exclusively from selfish agendas. Then there are many, many people whose motives are mixed...and most of them live in our mirrors.

I used to really struggle (I still do, but I'm slowly improving) with what one wise friend called "anger fantasies." I've talked to enough people to know I'm not alone in this: you play out a conversation in your head before it happens, anticipating all the hurtful things someone could say - and then you plan your response. By the end of it, you're furious at this person as though the conversation actually happened!

Similarly, you begin imagining what somebody meant when they made a certain comment and then you extrapolate that into a whole conspiracy theory of malevolent behind-the-scenes stuff.

More often than not, the conversation never goes that way (unless you stick to your anger script and take it there) and the other person meant something totally different in their comment. But still, like the proverbial dog in scripture, we habitually return to this disgusting practice. No other non-Jesus person has the ability to change that on which we choose to focus our mental energy - you're the only one actually in your head.

One of the strongest convictions I gained from my studies in psychology is that just about everything is nature AND nurture. We may have a genetic predisposition to be glass-half-empty kind of person...but if we don't feed it, that perspective will wither and die. If we choose to focus on cynicism and negativity, then even if we were born with a cheery disposition, chances are we'll have more in common with Oscar than Elmo.

Recently, thanks to a free kindle download, I discovered another book: UNconditional? The Call of Jesus to Radical Forgiveness by Brian Zhand. This book also begins with a page from the holocaust. There is a story of Jewish man who was called in to sit at the deathbed of a Nazi soldier in search of forgiveness from a Jewish person...ANY Jewish person. The question that this man later asked was, is it necessary or even possible to offer such forgiveness? Interestingly enough, I was reading this book when the news came out that Osama Bin Laden had been killed by US special forces.

In both of these situations the conclusion that seemed inescapable is that 1) without the example of God's love and forgiveness modeled in the life of Christ it is difficult to imagine offering forgiveness to those who have truly wronged us (or humanity) and 2) because of the example of God's love through Jesus, it is essential that we offer such forgiveness.

If this is possible and necessary in scenarios of such vast significance, it stands to reason that it must also permeate our daily relationships as well. In order to life in this way we must not only seek to live as Christ lived, but also to see others as Christ sees them...and even to see Christ in them.

By the power of the Holy Spirit, let us not only seek to be Christ to others, but to see Christ in them. I'm convinced that success in the latter will lead to success in the former. It is increasingly common these days (and I am so glad for this) to hear people talking about seeing Christ in a person asking for money on a street corner. It is perhaps less common to say that we saw Christ in a person we know personally and with whom we disagree, or who we feel has wronged us. Its even less common to hear someone say they saw Christ in someone they deem an “enemy."

How would our daily life change if we set out to see Christ in every person? That doesn’t mean we condone every action or turn a blind eye to injustice and sin. It does mean that we recognize that our true enemy isn’t flesh and blood but the powers and principalities of darkness. It requires us to focus our mental energies on things which are beneficial and not destructive; we must avoid the temptation to turn every comment into a slight or every action into an attack.

Of all of Paul's letters, my favorite is definitely Philippians. So I let Paul have the final words of encouragement in this post:

Philippians 4:4-9 "Rejoice in the Lord always. I will say it again: Rejoice! Let your gentleness be evident to all. The Lord is near. Do not be anxious about anything, but in every situation, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.
 Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things. Whatever you have learned or received or heard from me, or seen in me—put it into practice. And the God of peace will be with you."

Saturday, August 1, 2009

I Need God to See Me

Why the Reformed Overemphasis on Substitutionary Atonement Falls Flat with Me.


To whatever degree my sins have needed to be atoned for, it is only in Christ that such atonement has been made available. I fully believe and affirm this. I’m just not so sure that this is the fullest picture of what has happened (see my previous post on the Wrath of God). My problem with substitutionary atonement is one of degree rather than kind. 


I also struggle with the statement that sin has created a rift that has made it so that God cannot even look on us without a blood offering covering our trespasses (see my previous post Telling Better Stories). 


Recently on his blog, writer extraordinaire Donald Miller talked about the power of stories and how listening to the wrong ones will completely screw you up (you should check his post out...go ahead, I’ll wait). 


I love that he started his telling of the Story by saying, “The Trinity existed forever in a completely loving community.” When I was asked to write a paper on my theological center for ministry it was titled “God, the Community of Love” and began with the words: 

Before the beginning there was Community. God, the Community of Love, which we refer to as the Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit had a perfect relationship of mutual love and respect. This isn’t to say that there were three gods - there is One God and this God is the essence of Love. Love does not exist and is not expressed in isolation, it is expressed in community. This God, this Community of Love was not incomplete, the Trinity was the definition of completion. Community needed nothing, Love lacked nothing. Love was eternally expressed within the Community of the One God in Three Persons.

While the Community of Love was not incomplete, neither is God static. The nature of True Community is expansive. It is dynamic. It is always growing and bringing into itself everything around it. The relationship of the Community, being rooted and established in a deep indescribable love, felt compelled to create. For that is what love is and what love does, it continually creates expansive opportunity for love to be expressed. 

So God, the Community of Love created. God brushed away the darkness, stepped into the midst of chaos and brought forth solid foundations. God molded and formed an unbelievably expansive and expanding universe, and in an inconspicuous section of all that began to paint with beautiful strokes a landscape that was begging to be enjoyed...

Now, at the end of Miller’s blog post you’ll notice a postscript that speaks of white 20-something males whose parents are paying for their education...well, I can’t deny that he’s got me pegged on some of those descriptors (hopefully my monthly student loan payments give me some street cred here...). I don’t want to bash Miller; I’ve been following his tweets about A Million Miles and can’t wait to read it. I hate that I’ll be at SMU while he’s speaking at ACU’s Summit in September. Blue Like Jazz was great and Searching for God Knows What was even better. But he temporarily loses me when his story gets to the reason and function of Christ’s Incarnation.


I’ve always wondered how it is that God could create and declare “good” a universe which is not God (therefore less pure than God, the essence of purity) and be unable to be in the presence of something impure. Of course we immediately point to the Fall destroying creation’s purity. I’m going to leave off the discussion about just how perfect everything was pre-fall - was it realized or potential perfection? The Eastern Church Fathers and Mothers have some interesting thoughts on this subject.


Instead I’d like to point to God’s immediate response to the fall...he walks right up to Adam and Eve and asks what they have done. How is that possible? I thought God couldn’t be in the presence of sin? And from that point forward God continues to come near - long before the institution of the sacrificial system...which the prophets later tell us that God isn’t so interested in anyway. 


Yes, the relationship is dreadfully damaged and the effects of sin are overwhelming. Of this there is little to debate. Humanity seems doomed for total destruction, a path which we remain incredibly gifted at following. But God continues to come into our midst. He sets up his tabernacle among the people and dwells with them. God enters our mess over and again.


Jesus’ incarnation is not the first time God has come near. It is the seminal event in that vein but not the first. And for that matter if Jesus is God and God can’t be around sin then what was Jesus doing here for 30-something years?


My critique here isn’t leveled at Miller, he is simply representing a telling of the story that has been around for a while (though contrary to what we may be told, it has not always been the dominant telling). I get it. This telling of the story has some attractiveness to it - it provides security and a way to explain the pain we see all around us. And it does so because it isn’t entirely untrue. But as the controlling metaphor it continues to fall flat.


I think one of the aspects that really keeps this view point muddled for me is the statement (again, this isn’t unique to Miller) that when God looks at us he sees Jesus. 


I’m sorry but if that is true it is a devastating blow. 


You see there are lots of people who look at me without seeing me. There are plenty of people who like or dislike me because when they look at me they see someone (or something) other than who (or what) I actually am. I don’t need a god who does the same thing. If my creator can't even look at me then what hope do I have? And if I find out that he's only pretending to love me and instead is able to fool me by pretending that I'm someone he DOES love... 


Maybe everyone else is okay with it, but I need to know that God sees me for who I truly am and loves me anyway. I do not need to hear that until my transformation is complete this God is going to pretend I’m his Favorite Son so that he can stomach the sight of me. 


And for the record, I believe that God is in the process of healing me of the sin and brokenness that I exhibit and even before this transformation is complete God loves THAT me. I believe that while everyone else sees me in bits and pieces, some bits accurate and some clouded by their own baggage or mine, God sees straight through to the core, the essence which he created. And I believe that this God, my Father, loves me more than I can possibly understand...already. I believe and pray that this transformation is into the image and likeness of the Favorite Son. But I don’t get lost in translation, I get healed, restored and remade. God doesn’t see Jesus, God sees me and we all rejoice as the family resemblance increases.


I don't think that the marriage and reunion with God will happen in some disembodied heaven in some distant future. I think that the reclaiming and remaking of creation (including myself) is already in process  and I have, in a very real way, already received new life and reconciliation with God. I agree with Miller that things are not yet as they should be and it is because of Jesus that we have hope. But we aren't just sitting around waiting either. The Kingdom of God is at hand! This is the very gospel proclaimed by Jesus. We can begin to participate in this community and come alongside of God in God's ministry of reclaiming all things. It is about the future and it is also about the present.



Wednesday, December 10, 2008

Telling Better Stories

rembrandt-the-return-of-the-prodigal-son-the-hermitage-st-petersburg-prodig26

Some of those who have responded to my previous post on the wrath of God (primarily in person or by phone) seem to have understood me to say that God is not concerned with sin or that there is no response of wrath.

I understand how they could come to that since my first post on this subject was intended primarily to pull our focus away from the satisfaction of God's wrath as the primary purpose of the cross. I made a case against this perspective not because I don’t believe it has a part in this story, but because for so many of us it has been the ONLY part of the story that seemed to matter.

I do believe that sin and injustice matter to God. I believe that violence and oppression certainly bring about the wrath of God; my friend Luke pointed out the story of Sodom and Gomorra...another good example would be the plagues on Egypt. I have said before, and still believe, that mercy taken to an extreme is injustice to those offended.

I believe that our obstinate desire to continue in sin when faced with the Truth of God, is something which does bring guilt and potentially wrath.

I’d like to talk more about what that means. When we read about the wrath of God being poured out or threatened to be poured out there are two basic categories: 1) evil and violent cultures/people groups and 2) God’s chosen people who continue generation after generation to refuse to worship God alone; who fail to be the people they’re called to be.

Notice that if the evil communities - such as Sodom and Gomora or Egypt - would have repented, then God would have withheld his wrath. Look at Ninevah - Jonah preaches the worst sermon in history and boom, the whole city repents and then, double boom God relents. No sacrifice needed to appease his wrath other than the sacrifice of a broken and contrite heart.

Regarding the wrath poured out on God’s people - a story which is repeated throughout Israel’s history - let’s not forget how often they were given the chance to repent and turn back to God. The message of Jeremiah was that God’s wrath would come in the form of exile and control by a foreign power unless the people turned back to God. God’s wrath was NOT inescapable, it only came about after repeated refusals by His people to listen.

I’m not arguing that Jesus’ crucifixion didn’t serve as the final sacrifice for sin - I think that is absolutely part of what happened. However, I believe that it is false to assert that God is bound by his justice to require a sacrifice and therefore that must have been the primary reason for the cross. If God is bound to satisfy justice, then God is subservient to justice...we should worship justice because it is more powerful than God. But God is love. Love certainly involves seeking justice for others, but love also forgives offenses against itself.

I believe that there are some serious holes in the position that God is bound by his justice and so the pouring out of his wrath on someone (be it on us or Jesus) is central to his nature. While God is certainly just, God is not subject to anything - if so then, again, we should worship that. It is not okay to say that God IS justice and thus he is bound by himself. First of all, while Scripture says that God is just (an adjective) it does not say that God IS Justice (noun) - we’re told that God is Love...not Justice.

One response I’ve heard to this is that love must be just. Love certainly contains a component of justice yet it is also filled with mercy, long-suffering, forgiveness and grace.

Substitutionary atonement fails to acknowledge God’s longstanding history of offering forgiveness to those who have offended him without requiring the taking of life. Hosea 6 reminds us that God “desires mercy, not sacrifice.” In that passage God, through through the prophet, is urging his people to turn back and acknowledge him - they had ALREADY broken their covenant with God and thus justice demanded that they be put out. The entire point of Hosea’s life and ministry was that God is not bound by this expectation of justice. God is willing to set all that aside if his people will remember and return.

Isn’t that precisely what we are called to as well? Paul confronts the church in Corinth for their insistence on getting justice when they’ve been wronged: “The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? (1 Corinthians 6:7)”

Demanding justice for yourself does not seem to carry the same weight as demanding justice for the weak and the oppressed (assuming you aren’t the weak and oppressed). God is the One who speaks up for justice on behalf of those who cannot speak for themselves and yet where God is concerned he extends mercy and forgiveness.

When God is finally forced to pour out his wrath, he tells the people he will not remain angry forever - God’s wrath is redemptive rather than merely retributive (thanks Nate); God’s wrath is a means rather than an end.

How does Jesus describe God in relation to our “lostness”? Well, most of us are familiar with the three parables of lost things. The lost coin, lost sheep and prodigal son are important parables where Jesus stresses heavily the nature of God - hence three similar stories in quick succession. In these stories we find not a vengeful God of righteous wrath, but a compassionate caretaker, shepherd and father. The shepherd does not require the sheep to be sacrificed and the father does not require the son to become a slave - apparently being lost was punishment enough.

HOWEVER (Galatians 6:7) "Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.” God does take sin very seriously because sin is a component of the larger brokenness that plagues all of creation - a creation that is beloved by God and which God is even now working to restore and heal. Sin, brokenness and evil are true enemies of life, if that is what we sow then that is what we will reap.

What if that is what the wrath of God really is? Eventually God allows us to remain in the lostness we brought on ourselves. It isn’t that God brings about some vicious torture because his sense of honor has been accosted. He invites us to return but if we continue to refuse; if we continue to willingly sow evil, then how can we not reap destruction?

This shift in understanding does is not devalue the damage of sin or the need for a Savior. However, it does demand that we recognize how we’ve made sin the point for too long. Sin is only the point if our genesis (beginning) was in Genesis 3. But the fall of humanity is not the foundation of this story, the point is the power of a good creator God speaking all things into existence and being very pleased with his good creation (Genesis 1). The point is that this God desires to be in close communion with that which he has made and he will cross any chasm to rescue us from death.

Sin is a character in this story, but it is not the main character. The wrath of God is a potential subplot, but not the climax or the resolution. The wrath of God is no more central to this story than not failing a class is the central reason to study in school or gaining nutrients for physical survival is the primary reason to share a meal with friends.

God is a just God; he demands justice for those who are oppressed and he will not allow those who continue to defy him to remain unpunished. But God IS love. God is the One who is at work in healing broken lives and restoring damaged relationships. This is the central message of the cross - a new power and a new kingdom are available. No longer will the oppressive regimes of this world define power. The Kingdom of God is at hand, it is for everyone and it has a whole new definition of life.

The barriers have been torn down; the enemy has been vanquished and the invitation to enter into life has been given. This is not primarily about a loan shark collecting a debt, this is about a father running to meet his child on the road. Falling on his knees, kissing and embracing his beloved, putting rings on fingers and coats on shoulders and throwing a feast to celebrate the restoration of the father’s broken heart.

That is a much better story.

Tuesday, December 2, 2008

So, This Story is Kinda Long...

preaching-feasting

I just finished 5 weeks of preaching at Christ Journey on the topic of Sabbath. My suspicion going into this series was that very few of us, particularly here in our faith community, really understand, appreciate or practice any type of Sabbath rhythm.

I think this suspicion was confirmed and (hopefully) overcome. Over the past month I’ve had people come to me and say, “I’m glad we did this, I never knew that Sabbath had anything at all to do with Christianity - I thought it was just an Old Testament thing like Passover or Kosher laws.” Another told me, “I was always taught that Sabbath was going to church and NOT GOING to movies or the mall on Sunday.”

What we spent this entire month considering were the ways in which a Sabbath rhythm could be cultivated (which basically means that we have an intentional time set aside each week to cease from work and the compulsion to produce and prove ourselves and instead embrace other things like rest, worship, feasting, remembering, celebrating and storytelling).

I admit fully that while I have a great affinity for the concept of Sabbath I am not always very good at practice. I can see the areas in my life that would be healthier and more satisfying were I to center myself in the practice of remembering God is God and I am not...but I do not do the thing I want to do and what I do not what to do, I do.

One concept which has come up quite a bit lately, through our Sabbath discussions as well as in other (seemingly) unrelated settings is the importance of story. Being good storytellers and story-hearers is important to our spiritual formation and it is also a reenactment of the Gospel of Jesus.

We discussed in a couple of the sermons that Sabbath itself is rooted in story - we are first introduced to Sabbath in the narrative of creation. It does not simply show up out of the blue in the middle of the Ten Commandments. In fact the command issued in Exodus 20 is to REMEMBER the Sabbath day. This story is formative.

Later when the Ten Commandments are retold to Israel in Deuteronomy 5 Sabbath is set within another story. Here the people are told to remember the Sabbath day as a way to remember that they were captives in Egypt and God rescued them and brought them to freedom. The Exodus story is central to understanding God’s relationship to humanity. We, the captives, cried out to God and he came near in order to set us free. He is not a God demanding constant production, like the Egyptian masters. He invites his people to rest in Him.

Jesus would later say that He came so that we might have life and have it to the fullest. He said, “Come to me all you who are weary and burdened and I will give you rest.”

The hearing and telling of these stories - our stories in scripture - is central to participation in the life of faith. But that isn’t where the importance of story ends.

In the midst of one of our worship gatherings we had an opportunity for several couples to share stories. They were asked to talk about how God had worked in their lives in the past or where they were hoping to see God at work in the future.

I thought it was a great moment for our family when one couple shared what they thought were two unrelated stories. However after they shared their two stories we helped them to reinterpret their story. In fact the two were so closely connected that it was quite powerful - one talking about the struggle to find balance between providing for his family and spending time with them and the other talking about her struggle to forgive a father that failed to maintain that very balance.

We are a community that tells, retells and sometimes, reinterprets stories. It is what we do because it is precisely what God has done for us. The story of human existence was one of brokenness and despair. Sin, unchecked, destroys life after life with no compassion or mercy. God in his greatness did not allow this story to define us forever. Instead he stepped into the story and began redeeming and reconciling the characters. Humanity and all creation are in the process of being healed and restored by the Great Storyteller who was not happy with this tale ending in tragedy.

Where there are chapters of brokenness, God is editing and rewriting to include restoration. Where there is pain, God writes in healing; where there is chaos, God speaks a narrative of peace.

We too have that ability. We are able to tell the story in a new light. This isn’t to say that we stick our head in the sand and pretend that everything is okay. No, we step into the midst of a story that says everything is doomed and proclaim that in fact, there is hope. (Which was part of what happened at Marvelous Light)

marvelous-light

Paul stepped into the midst of total relativism in Athens (Acts 17) and said, “People of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. So you are ignorant of the very thing you worship - and this is what I am going to proclaim to you.”

Paul was able to reinterpret this story for the Athenians because he was willing to enter into their story in the first place. Had he simply stood outside the Areopagus and denounced their idolatry he would have had no impact whatsoever.

I recently heard a Christian say that they were unable to participate in Christmas activities because December 25 was an ancient pagan holiday associated with the Winter Solstice and the practices of Christmas originate in the worship of Saturnalia and other pagan gods.

It may be jarring to learn for the first time that there were religious celebrations associated with winter and even December 25 prior to Christ. While this may be difficult if you didn’t know about it, it isn’t a great deception.

In (I believe) 350, Pope Julius declared that the celebration of the birth of Christ would take place on December 25. This happened when many pagans were being forced to convert to Christianity. The move, while certainly containing the risk of syncretism, retold this story - which was always one of hope.

And theirs was a good story. The worship may have been false, but the concept was one of hope in a higher power that could rescue humanity from the powers of nature which were so threatening.

In fact, the practice of bringing an evergreen tree into one’s home was meant as a reminder that life would return even though the harsh cold winter seemed an unstoppable ally of death.

And Christianity retold this story. “Yes” we were able to say, “there is hope in the darkest of times; yes we can look forward to resurrection of life from the dead - but not because we’ve properly coerced the pagan gods but rather because the One True God has become one of us in order to be life and light in this darkness.” In other words, “So you are ignorant of the very thing you worship - and this is what I am going to proclaim to you.”

Granted, the early church’s use of power and coercion was not something I believe to be Christlike. There were probably many pagans who simply used Christian language while maintaining their pagan beliefs - just as there are many Africans today who struggle with syncretism...and many Americans who baptize their consumerism and greed.

For Christians not to celebrate Christmas - at a time when the whole world is just a little more receptive to hearing the story of God coming near - seems to me to be a tragic missed opportunity to engage in this story. This story has been reinterpreted, retold and redeemed. For those who used (or use) the winter solstice to worship gods which are unable to actually save, we say, “Do not be afraid. We bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is the Messiah, the Lord.” And because this story has been redeemed we can claim it as our story...because that it what it has become, it is a new creation!

I love the season of Advent - which is focused on anticipation of God coming near; the season of Christmas - which is focused on the arrival of our hope in the form of a Savior; the season of Easter - which is the fulfillment of our hope through the victory of Christ over sin and death. These seasons are filled with storytelling cues which can be incredibly powerful...and they can also prime the pump for the story to be told to those who’ve never heard.

I love the music, the decorations, the preparation for Christmas...there is no denying that something is happening. This story is just begging to not only be told, but to be experienced and entered into.

Now if we want to have a conversation about letting Christmas be an excuse to become self-centered materialists...well that’s an altogether different story.

Friday, November 28, 2008

The Wrath

wrath

I realize that contemporary evangelical Christianity is heavily - if not primarily - influenced by Calvinist and Augustinian assumptions about the total depravity and sinfulness of humanity, the justice of a wrathful God and the need for penal substitution which is the primary purpose and accomplishment of the cross of Jesus. With all that said, I know that this post will not sit well in such a worldview. But I’m okay with that.

The Wrath of God is a central point found in the “substitutionary atonement” view of what Jesus accomplished on the cross. For those who don’t know what that means, it is the understanding that our sin has caused a deep and tragic gap between us and God. Because He is completely pure and holy, God cannot stand to be in the presence of sin and impurity therefore we cannot enter God’s presence. Because our sin has caused such great offense to God, we are deserving of death and only a sacrifice at the level of God himself taking our place could satisfy the debt we owe. And so Jesus Christ takes on the sin of humanity and by his sacrifice we are ransomed (the debt of sin is paid).

Let me say that this is ONE way to explain what happened on the cross and while it is certainly a scriptural position, this is just part of the story and there are other equally scriptural ways to understand what took place. I will state up front MY BELIEF that while this understanding is biblical and is an appropriate description in some settings, there are other explanations which are equally biblical (meaning they are found in scripture) but are perhaps more central to the overall message of the Bible.

Recently this issue came up on a friend’s blog and another commenter defended the position strongly. He provided a list a scripture references defending penal substitution and even made the statement that there was no reason for the cross other than to appease the wrath of God. In fact he believes that “any attempt to diminish the importance of the penal substitution of Christ diminishes God’s holiness and wrath, as well as the wicked depth of human sin.”

I’d like to include the main sections of my two responses. I haven’t asked the fellow for his permission so I’m not going to include his comments. Let me say that while I disagree with his position, I appreciated his willingness to dialog without resorting to name calling or personal attacks.
The act of the powerful Christ emptying himself in the face of violence and sin - not fighting fire with fire, so-to-speak - is a powerful way to understand what took place on the cross. Through Christ’s response to evil we are given the ability and model to do likewise. We do not have to respond to evil with more evil - we can show the expression of true love and willingly lay down that which is temporary to enter into that which is eternal.

The Cristus Victor theory, which has its own limitations, declares that through the cross Christ was victorious over the enemies of sin and death. Christ entered fully into the grasp of the enemy and then in an undeniable display of superiority, brushed himself off and walked away - effectively showing the enemy to be impotent.

For a people (Israel) who were expecting the return of a Davidic King and the restoration of the nation to a position of prominence, the cross holds yet more significance. Jesus was certainly the promised Messiah and yet he behaved very differently from the manner in which Israel anticipated. Rather than leading Israel in a grand military coup, Jesus showed them - and us - how to die. More than dying so that we don’t have to, Jesus died so that we would know how to.

There is no reason, from the perspective of the cross, to view substitutionary atonement as even the primary expression. Again, I don’t intend to discredit the theory, yet those who choose to approach the message of the cross from the perspective of victory, freedom, healing and love can do so with a clear position of scripture and the history of the church to support them.

Then after conceding that it is possible to construct a list of valid texts to provide a biblical case for substitutionary atonement (not unlike the lists that one could put together for other atonement theories) I went on to say...
However, we also could look at larger trajectories in scripture and see that God’s wrath is rarely the point…it is often the last ditch effort of gracious creator engaged in every imaginable tactic to get the attention of his unruly - but still beloved children. You pointed to the suffering servant in Isaiah - if you continue reading through to chapter 58 you’ll notice that what God desires is mercy, not sacrifice. Appeasing the wrath of God through sacrifices, at least here, is secondary to showing grace, mercy and compassion - because this is the type of God in whose image we are created.
I won’t argue one bit that the wrath of God is an important and recurring theme in scripture, but I am far from convinced that it is the primary message...Personally, I’m going to say that talking about reconciliation doesn’t have to always be a message about “sinners in the hands of an angry God.” And I do not see in any way that God’s holiness is diminished by that - and I find it interesting that we should even feel compelled to put God’s wrath up next to his holiness as preeminent descriptors. I’ll argue all day that it is perhaps more central to the overall message of Scripture to say that “The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin.”
Of course this quote is from Exodus 34, where God came down and proclaimed his name to Moses. You’ll notice that the rest of verse 7 says, “Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished.” I affirm that truth and yet also put it secondary - as the text does - to God’s compassion and graciousness.

There’s more that I could say about this topic, but I’ll stop for now and see if anyone else has something to add.