I don’t really remember how I related to this idea as a child. In one sense, I “knew” it. I was taught it, and I was pretty good at learning the things that I was taught. So, I knew it. But I don’t remember whether it made any sense to me at the time or not.

It doesn’t now. Hasn’t for a long time. As with most doctines about “God’s Will,” there is room for debate on whether this one is “Biblical” or not. (James McGrath says it is not, while Ken Pulliam thinks that, on balance, it is). Why is that important? Well, for some, whether it is “Biblical” or not determines whether it is “God’s Will” or not. For some, whether PST (assuming it is “the Biblical view”) is morally defensible or not determines whether Biblical fundamentalism is morally defensible. For others, it’s just an interesting question.

My view is that this is like any other doctrine. PST is both Biblical and un-Biblical, depending on which texts you focus on.

Furthermore, my view is that PST is non-sensical and morally indefensible.

Ken Pulliam, whose individual post is linke above on the issue of whether PST is “Biblical”, has written no less than fifty three detailed posts expositing his view that PST is morally indefensible. He argues against numerous modern and historical theologians who attempt to defend PST. To argue this forcefully against so many well-credentialed theologians, Ken Pulliam must be extremely clever, or he must be correct in his view. I am quite convinced that it is the latter (though I don’t doubt that he is clever). The articles he has archived under the PST category are spread over several pages (navigation is at the bottom), here. I believe this archive is likely among the most comprehensive (and persuasive) set of arguments against PST in existence. If you are interested in the Penal Substitution Theory, you could do worse than to spend a few days reading through it.

I offer the failings of the Penal Substitution Theory of atonement as an indictment of fundamentalism and as an invitation to consider healthier modes of thought about how humans can relate to what they hold sacred.

I have deliberately avoided defining PST. It is often difficult to distinguish from its cousin, “Satisfaction”, and its parent general “Substitution”. Virtually every criticism of PST applies to the broader spectrum of “punishment” and “substitution” theories.

An exception is the “ritual” subset of satisfaction/substitution models. These effectively take the ancient notion of sacrifice, strip them of the context (God’s wrath mollified by an obsequious gift), and leave only the ritual itself as the mode by which God is satisfied. (It is not always the case that the context is removed – sometimes the ancient concept of sacrifice is kept relatively intact). While most adherents of a satisfaction/substitution theory of punishment do not accept the “ritual” view, they sometimes will use its language, even in defense of the views they do espouse (citing, for instance, the necessity that Jesus be “perfect” in order for the sacrifice to be adequate).

Other orthodox or neo-orthodox ideas of atonement often come into the mix during discussions of atonement. Especially prevalent is the participation theory, that all who identify with Jesus participated mystically in his death and restoration, and have therefore have already been punished and restored. Arguments against PST have little force against the participatory model – one which (as McGrath points out is also Biblical). This model does less violence to ideals of justice and mercy but I personally still find it unsatisfying.

It seems odd to mention the Classic theory of atonement so late in a list, but it simply lacks clout these days. It often comes up, but rarely from anyone who accepts its primary efficacy. Under the Classic model, Jesus’ death and resurrection defeated Satan and Evil once and for all. As a theory unto itself, it has a feel of the mystical – this willing death of God, and his subsequent resurrection – for the very reason of their having happened – was the vehicle of atonement. They mystically about the defeat of Satan, evil, and death, and therefore wrought atonement. As a footstool to substitutionary theories, this view is merely a metaphor – it is because Jesus was punished as a substitute for us that Satan, evil, and death were robbed of their power. This is one area where some conservatives agree with some liberals – in symbologizing the Classic theory (though liberals are apt to do it sans the substitutionary doctrine).

Under the moral-influence model (which is rarely invoked by conservatives as a model of primary efficacy), upon understanding the nature of Jesus’ sacrifice, people are moved to relinquish their sinful nature in favor of a Godly one. This, rather than a vicarious punishment, brings about atonement.

Under other Christian theories of atonement, the crucifixion is not directly responsible for the atonement at all. These are generally the most liberal theories, and include some Christian Humanist viewpoints. The most prevalent of these (and the only one I will mention) is that it is Jesus’ message that brings salvation. Under this view, crucifixion was the price Jesus had to pay for bringing his salvific message to humanity. I certainly understand the appeal of this view to liberals and to humanists. There are among the teachings imputed to Jesus some edifying lessons. And, the notion that Jesus would preach the message boldly even knowing it would mean his death is an edifying lesson in selflessness.

There was a stage during which I considered adopting a Christian-humanist viewpoint centered around the “saving message” and this view of atonement. The reason I didn’t is the same reason I don’t accept most other Christian doctrines – I don’t believe it is true. It is an admirable fiction, but a fiction none-the-less. First, I don’t especially believe that Jesus had any special foreknowledge of his death. It’s possible that he knew he was painting himself into a corner that would end in death – even crucifixion. But it’s just as likely that he was teaching what he thought was right without much appreciation for the danger in which it may have placed him. Second, I don’t think that it was his strong ethical teachings that got him crucified. I think it was his more likely his opposition to the practices current in the administration of the Jerusalem temple that did him in. Third, it’s hard to say what Jesus’ teachings really were. They likely didn’t include everything attributed to him in the New Testament. They likely did include things we don’t get to read about in the New Testament. Fourth, even among those attributed to him in the New Testament, only a few were especially strong ethical messages. Fifth, of those attributed to him which were strong ethical messages, most echoed ethical teachings already present in the Hebrew scriptures or elucidated by other teachers of his era – teachings which didn’t get anybody crucified. A person could do worse than to adopt the salvific message model of redemption and a humanistic Christianity, but it isn’t for me.

*These days more atonement-related ink is spilled on another controversy than on the general model of atonement. Unfortunate in my view, since the model itself needs some serious revision if it is to be held to a high standard of sense and sensibility. But I don’t get to decide what folks argue about, and the bigger discussion is over whether our sins were *infused* into Christ such that he somehow “became” guilty, or they were merely *imputed* to him, such that God was willing to act as though he were guilty of them. While Pulliam doesn’t often employ the language of imputation and infusion in his posts, he deals with both possibilities exhaustively.

Read full post, see embedded content, and comment here!
Posted in: Bible, Religion
Post tags: Religion

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

George Washington by Horatio Greenoug, Photo by Claire Houck, Creative Commons licensed

On point one… while remaining cognizant that hagriography isn’t proper history, I enjoyed this aspect of the segment. I like a good hagriography, and there’s hardly a better subject for it than the father of our country. King George is said to have remarked on George Washington’s plan to take a voluntary term limit and pass the presidency along democratically chosen lines that “if he does that, he will be the greatest man in the world.” Considering that GW could have easily chosen to keep the position for life (and set an anti-democratic precedent), his decision to hand over power really does put him in a very good light. This and a number of forward-thinking actions make it difficult to think of GW as anything but great.

The second point was also interesting. It was very partisan (as one would expect on Moody radio), offering evidence for GW’s orthodoxy and devotion uncritically, while glossing over a number of sticky points. I believe that this is one of those cases where the center between two extremes really has a lot to recommend it as being closer to the truth. The evidence presented does in fact rule out the notion that GW was a partisan Deist, hostile toward orthodox Christianity. But, the evidence not presented does soften the notion that he was a devout and partisan orthodox Christian who opposed the spirit of separation of church and state as understood by Madison, Adams, and Jefferson. Nor was he hostile to orthodox religion in the mold of Thomas Paine. He might best be understood as a Christian Deist in the mold of Matthew Tindal – but there is plenty of room for debate and Orthodox Christianity is certainly within the realm of possibility.

The third point was mainly polemic. What Moody calls “historical revisionism” is probably a result of secular partisans playing up the evidence against Washington’s orthodoxy, and even of responsible historians treating the issue as difficult and contentious – denying the view that Washington was clearly and certainly orthodox. On the other hand I had to agree that the state of modern education, and the common disinterest in George Washington and the other founders is regrettable in the extreme. Should educators renew their interest in Washington, I hope they will present his whole life fairly and historically, even the unfortunate bits. And, I hope they will portray modern understanding of his religious views with the nuance responsibility requires.

I recommend the Wikipedia article on GW’s religion – at least as it currently stands. It includes a large segment on Lillback’s book, and helps see how the issue can be clouded by seemingly contradictory evidence.

Read full post, see embedded content, and comment here!
Posted in: Church/State Separation, History, Religion
Post tags: Christianity, Deism, George Washington, Religion, Separation of Church and State

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

“It has been remarked that Christians, of whatever creed, have hope in the death of their children. However tenacious they may be of a narrow and rigid creed which consign an uncoverted child to the regions of hopeless despair, yet when that unconverted though dearly loved one, without leaving any evidence of a saving change, is snatched away by death, and the fond parent is called to follow his lifeless remains to the silent grave, he has in the midst of his grief a hope that ‘it is well with the child.’ What gives him consolation, and speaks peace to his troubled spirit? I answer, without the fear of contradiction, It is a confidence in the inherent, unchanging goodness and impartial mercy of the Lord our God.”

–Rev. George Bates (- source)

I am a Unitarian Universalist. But, I am not a Unitarian in any sense apart from the very trivial one that I do not believe in a divine Trinity. That much I share with believing Unitarians, but I do not share their belief in a Unitary deity. I am also not a Universalist in the same sense as Rev. Bates, quoted above. But I believe that what I hold in common with him, and I believe that what I share with him and with many others is deeper than it might appear at first glance.

I acknowledge that the world is not biased in favor of what humans experience as “good”. I acknowledge that there is much evil in it – resulting both from human choice, and from natural accident. But I do believe that there is a sense in which the world is “good” – that we can rejoice and enjoin one another to rejoice in being alive in it. And, that implies that whatever rule – be it natural or supernatural – that exerts itself over this world is not malicious.

Let me repeat myself. It is good to be alive in this world. And that means that there is no malice in nature or in God.

This is where put myself in line with Rev. Bates and with many, many others consciously or otherwise, viewed as heretical by the pridefully orthodox: It is incontrovertible and self-evident that this view of the world is incompatible with the doctrine of eternal damnation.

It is unfortunate in the extreme that Christian Scripture, faithfully adhered to, seems to render this question very difficult. I understand that the proof-texts upon which the doctrine of damnation rest are stronger, clearer, and more numerous than any explicitly universalist or annhilationist texts. It is not my job, nor is it within my ability to defend any doctrine Biblically. But let it be said that the puzzle is not an easy one. Certainly there are proof-texts even stronger and more numerous than those for damnation that show the character of God as good. And, difficult as it may be to reconcile the proof-texts for damnation with this notion, it is nevertheless impossible to construe God as good if you ascribe to him a plan that includes eternal damnation. To say that both are true is no more than to assert that it is both square and circular.

Apologists’ notions of a “just” and “infinitely holy” God who cannot tolerate sin do not explain or give space to accommodate eternal damnation with God’s goodness. These are poor efforts, only accepted even by their proponents out of desperate and unrealistic hope of preserving the orthodox exegesis of scripture that yields eternal damnation and the goodness of God together. It is a testament to the ability for the human mind to compartmentalize and to ignore the 800 pound gorilla in the room. Eternal damnation cannot be explained or accepted apart from the imputation of malice to the almighty.

It is not because, as Albert Mohler suggests, of “superficial preaching in church pulpits” that most American Christians believe that Christianity isn’t the only way to heaven – it is because their belief in the goodness of God is more real to them than the details of doctrine. This is as it should be!

I feel for anyone whose commitment to scripture, or to a certain view of scripture, makes this a difficult issue for them. Although I don’t share that commitment, I am rooting for those folks to come to terms in a way that is consistent with an uplifting view of life and a healthy view of death. I’ll be glad to provide universalist or annihilationist proof texts to anyone who thinks those may help.

I plan to return to this subject now and again in the future. I specifically have a topic in mind that I hope to get to later this week that will reflect back on this important point.

In the meantime, all of this is to explain that I am not, technically, a Unitarian or Universalist, but I am in a very profound sense allied with Universalism. I think that, if the UU church is to have a witness in the world, it is the second ‘U’ which we must preach, and we must do it vocally. We must tell the cohabitants of this planet we share that life is good and worth living, and that there is no malice in any true God.

Read full post, see embedded content, and comment here!
Posted in: Religion, Unitarian Universalist
Post tags: Religion, Universalism

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh