We interrupt this series . . .

There is a very important "dialogue" underway in the blogosphere concerning penal substitution.  I think it is best referenced over at Adrian Warnock's site over here and with Justin Taylor here.  These links are good in that they point you to what others are writing so you can look at the reason for the controversy.  Personally, I am going to take some time while traveling to look over this stuff on my own as I want to be  careful in my reading and citation of others.  But this debate is crucial and is already effecting our churches. One more just added, here.

A couple of thoughts from the West Coast, where it is sunny and 65 degrees as I write -- and will remain sunny for months to come.

I noted in a post last week here that the current debate about the nature of the atonement is of greatest consequence.  I am reading an out of print work by Alistair McGrath right now -- The Mystery of the Cross -- and he insists so clearly that the cross is at the center of Christianity and its meaning is what makes Christianity unique.  Works like Pierced for our Transgressions are necessary in a climate where people who bear the name of Christian are questioning conclusions reached for centuries, across the range of the church.

I do not know some of the men being cited, but I do hear people saying they find the idea of penal substitution to be distasteful and vulgar.  I have one thought on this matter -- if we are worried about people's sensibilities and modern aversion to penal substitution, then we will have to stop talking about crucifixion too. Do I realize how vulgar it is to the natural man to say God the Son was crucified for us? 

We have not one idea of the scandal and shame of the cross to the first century.  May I suggest that if we really preached the meaning of crucifixion as it was understood in the first century -- if we made clear what it meant to be crucified in terms of humiliation and shame -- if we did that, penal substitution would not be the only big issue. Crucifixion would be.  I think the cross puts an end to all forms of fashionable, milk-toast, seeker friendly Christianity. The Gospel is scandalous -- and in it the power of God is seen.

It seems that the very design of God in the sacrifice of Christ is to run counter to all the sensibilities of humanity in sin.  And that begins with its means -- crucifixion. I am continuing to reflect on what it means to follow one who would have been treated with nothing but scorn by his contemporaries -- why should I expect the message of the cross to be appealing apart from God's Spirit at work?

If I want a message that is appealing and less offensive to modern man, I will end up with the "Fatherhood of God and the Brotherhood of Man" and a limp-wristed Jesus whose spoke sweet words of inspiration to disheartened but well intended people.  But we preach Christ crucified, dying in our place, satisfying the holy character of God by his sacrifice.

Comments

[dan czach]

Mark, a few weeks ago you had a book on the shame and scandal of the Cross in NT times listed on your reading table. Would you please name that book (Morris, maybe?), as well as any others that you would recommend on the subject of the Cross, how it is viewed as both glorious (to Christians) and shameful (to non-Christians), and what was actually accomplished (I have the Stott book). Thanks.
dan czach