no room for despair

I've been observing the debates on the island from a safe distance, so to speak, and have been considering what it might mean for the situation in Germany. Brian McLaren's books are beginning to be translated into German and are being plugged by one of the biggest Christian publishers. The Gulf Stream brings all sorts of "floaters" our way ;) ... but less moaning now... Dave asked several positive questions:

Why does penal substitution have to be central for us? How does believing this doctrine effect other areas of life and doctrine? How does it delight us?

Penal substitution has to be "central" for me because I read my bible. That may sound like a ridiculously blank statement, so I'll explain what I mean. When I read my bible, I am presented with a God who gets angry. This is not all of who God is, or necessarily the main thing, but it's there in black and white. Sure, he's slow to anger, compassionate and gracious, but he gets angry. Recently I read through Jeremiah - the first main point is: Jerusalem's going under because the people are sinful; God (in his sovereignty over the nations) is going to send an army to carry out his judgement. He's like a potter who's going to dash his vessel Judah on the ground. Do I think that's great? Do I get a sort of masochistic pleasure from this? Does this make God attractive to a 21st century student? No. Welcome to the bible: God gets angry.

I submit that the whole argument about penal substitution stems from a problem with the idea that God gets angry and kills people when they sin. At the end of the day it's God's anger and retributive justice that offends the human heart above all.

Penal substitution, that God in Christ bore the penalty for our sin, is a perfectly natural and consistent development of the story and theology of the Old Testament, perfectly in line with God's character revealed in the Hebrew scriptures.

Following from my bible reading, the realisation that I am a sinner who deserves to be put to death would only lead to despair if it were not for the demonstration of God's justice and love at the cross. With OT verses about God's burning hatred of all that is impure ringing in my ears, there is no hope and no assurance if I am merely left looking at an example of selfless non-violence or seeing evil powers being defeated. The cross means the defeat of evil - the cross and resurrection are the first glimpse of the new creation breaking through - but where does that leave sinners who are "filled with every kind of evil?" If the cross only means the defeat of evil, then it means I'm going down with the devil and his angels.

However, the breathtaking mercy of God means that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us - God's justice fell on Good Friday - the Word became flesh and suffered death on a cross, so that God's enemies could be reconciled to him. For this reason I glory in the cross. The cross means that God's righteous anger against me, who should be shut out from his presence, was spent, poured out in full. In short, the doctrine of penal substitution means that there is no reason for sinners to ultimately despair, because there is another place where wrath fell. Access to this state of grace comes through being in Christ, and he gives sinners no reason to despair, because he came especially to seek and save the lost, and says, "no-one who comes to me will I turn away".

Dave also asked: What are the shudder-worthy consequences of pushing it out of the picture? What does it look like when that happens?

I don't think that penal substitution normally gets pushed out of the picture on its own. What normally happens is that parts of God's character get pushed out of the picture. This particularly happens when the story of the Old Testament gets sidelined (apart from a couple of Psalms). As a result, churches have a view of God's character which is perhaps easier to swallow in the 21st century but basically completely modelled upon the ideals of the 21st century. Therefore if, when reading the New Testament, something comes along which involves God's wrath or retributive justice then it's reinterpreted as being fatherly discipline ("you wouldn't let your toddler cross the road alone, would you..."); all offence is removed, and God is once again cuddly. Don't get me wrong - I love hugs, and I love the pictures of God's warm tender compassion in the bible! But access to this grace is by God's mercy, and God's mercy in all generations flows from the cross, which is a demonstration of God's justice (Romans 3:25-26).

The consequences of pushing God's character out of the picture? Well, sooner or later, idolatry. That's bad. Equally, a fine-tuned penal substitutionary doctrine of the atonement without faith in Christ, or without love for others is also very bad. In the NT it says "be merciful to those who doubt". I view books which deny God's wrath and retribution as being erroneous, and they should be countered. Nevertheless I think that struggling with aspects of God's character is something from which no believer is spared, and we also need to think about how to be merciful to those experiencing acute struggles, and consider the tone with which we confront them. Or am I being too cuddly again?