Proclaiming the Scandal of the Cross: Contemporary Images of the Atonement by Mark D. Baker, Ed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The thesis is that there are many ways of describing what happened on the cross, and claiming that ‘penal substitution’ is the best or only way to describe it is not good. An earlier book, Recovering the Scandal of the Cross: Atonement in New Testament and Contemporary Contexts by the same guy Joel Green seems to have laid the groundwork for this book, which offers ‘creative examples of how the cross can be proclaimed today in culturally relevant and transformative ways.’<\/p>\n\n\n\n
There is a bit of an issue nowadays regarding whether ‘penal substitution’ is adequate, or whether it must be claimed as the only way to say what happened at Jesus’ death. Steve Chalke in a book The Lost Message of Jesus says this view makes God’s treatment of the Son sound like ‘child abuse.’ This upset a lot of people, who did not bother to try to understand what he was saying, but rather attacked him as if he was accusing God of ‘child abuse.’ Penal substitution is defended in another book I read about, Pierced for Our Transgressions which was called seriously ‘sub-biblical’ in a review by N.T. Wright.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
So I am looking forward to reading this book, and the earlier one, as I don’t know much about this controversy. I think the cross is fundamental. Preaching that I had been hearing in a previous period seemed to be totally lacking in any discussion of the cross, other than the occasional gospel invitation, which I thought was a serious issue.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
He points out several things about the ‘penal substitution’ model, which is commonly accepted as the only legitimate one. For instance, it ‘has one member of the Trinity punishing another member of the Trinity.’<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In fact he says that though theologians in their scholarly writings do not state it this way, the commonly accepted concept, on a popular level, is just like this. Thus though it need not be stated this way, ‘a God who has a vindictive character, who finds it much easier to punish than to forgive’ often is what people walk away with.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
He also says, ‘its concept of sin is anemic in that it portrays sin above all in individualistic terms of moral failure or transgression of a law. Although it serves to provide freedom from guilt, this view fails to connect sufficiently with the day-to-day realities of faithful discipleship since it addresses our reconciliation with God at an abstract level: what changes through the cross is a legal ruling. According to the logic of the model, one could be saved through penal substitution without experiencing a fundamental reorientation of one’s life.’<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Proclaiming the Scandal of the Cross: Contemporary Images of the Atonement by Mark D. Baker, Ed. The thesis is that there are many ways of describing what happened on the cross, and claiming that ‘penal<\/p>\n