Penal Substitution has been criticised and defended avidly by a variety of people in the blogosphere and elsewhere recently. Sadly, it's descended to personal insults on both sides. I've noticed an extremely ungracious attitude on the part of a lot of the anti-PSA lot, and I suspect that the only reason I haven't noticed a similarly ungracious attitude on the pro-PSA lot may well simply be because I'm one of them and thus don't get personally hurt by any insults they throw, and thus remember fewer of them. To be honest, I strongly suspect that lots of people on both sides need to think about what they've done, and probably offer private and public repentance. And I strongly suspect that anyone on either side is looking at this and saying "yeah, the other side really need to do that", without really thinking about whether it applies to them personally.
I don't want to talk about that. Largely because I get inappropriately worked up about such things, and might well write ungraciously. In fact, I almost certainly would. I've got a real temper when it comes to these kinds of things. I've steered clear of commenting too much as this has come up for similar reasons.
But as the PSA riots have died down, I figured it might be appropriate for me to talk about some thoughts that have occured to me during this. I think controversies, if used properly, can be brilliant for helping the church refine her teaching, and indeed refine even correct doctrine. And I'd really like to offer some thoughts on how we ought to express penal substitution.
Punished in our place
Scripture says that upon Jesus "was the punishment that made us whole" (Isaiah 53:5), that in Jesus, God "condemned sin in the flesh" (Romans 8:3). It's clear that Jesus took the punishment that we deserve.
What's more, it's clear that this was done to fulfill God's justice - it was "so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus." (Romans 3:26). God didn't unjustly punish Jesus in our place, but he did it in accordance with his own just nature - in order
So I'm all for the doctrine of penal substitution - that, because of his great love for us, God punished Jesus for our sins, so that he might be just in his justification of us.
What I'm not quite so keen on is it's expression in terms of 'wrath'.
Wrath
Scripture is very clear that God is a God of wrath. Tonnes of the old testament expresses God's wrath, and the fact of it is very much present in the New Testament. Paul builds much of his case in Romans upon the statement at the very beginning of the argument (just after the introduction has finished) - "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth." (Romans 1:18). He then spends the next two chapters explaining that this is the case against all men for all have sinned, and then explains that justification is possible because Jesus' death propitiated ("turned aside") his wrath, and fulfilled God's justice (3:25-26).
Wrath doesn't sound like a very nice term. What it basically means is anger - but in a more "biblical" sounding way, thus implying for many say that it's greater, or nastier, or whatever - depending upon people's preconceptions. ("Wrath" is probably a term that's more likely than anger to "turn off" people who aren't familiar with it, because it ties in with unhelpful stereotypes about biblical teaching. That's one reason I'm not dead keen on saying "Jesus bore our wrath".)
So God has anger. One thing evangelicals are united upon saying is that this anger is thoroughly just. We human beings might well get carried away with our anger, take it out irrationality, but God never does. His anger is always the completely rational emotional consequence of his justice. God's anger is his rational justice made passionate!
Now, when people say that Jesus bore our wrath, they don't mean that Jesus took any anger we might feel, and felt it himself. Nor do they mean that instead of God being angry with us, Jesus felt angry, - that the anger was a fluid that moved away from God, so he wasn't angry anymore. Either of those might be a more literal interpretation of the phrase "bore our wrath" or "bore the wrath of God", but they're also both, a) not what people mean, and b) disgustingly absurd.
What people do mean is that a) God justly punished and judged Jesus in our place, and b) as he did so, he felt and expressed (an entirely rational) anger towards Jesus.
I believe a passionately. But I'm pretty ambivalent towards saying b.
Did God feel angry towards Jesus?
Firstly, I'm uncomfortable about saying b on occasions when I'm talking to people who aren't quite familar with the various doctrines of divine wrath, Penal substitution, etc, because if you're not familiar, it sounds much more unpalatable than talking about justice. It sounds repulsive initially, and plays into a lot of caricatures of penal substitution - caricatures like lovelessness, or the idea that on the cross God is "venting" his anger - a bit like someone refusing to take their anger out on the person they're angry with, so instead they take it out on their door/cat/child. Aside from myself in the past, I know of at least one specific example of someone not having any trouble with PSA, until it was expressed in terms of wrath. I suspect there are many others. So simply in the interests of clarity, I'd suggest expressing PSA in terms of "justice" rather than "wrath", until one has the time to express the latter term better.
But more than that, I have issues with teaching on God's anger being felt towards Jesus. I'm not aware of any occasion where the bible explicitly talks of God's emotions towards Jesus on the cross as being anything like anger. (Please correct me if I'm wrong here, though!) Its dominant way of talking about it is certainly justice, condemnation, etc, with wrath not really making an entrance. This ought to convince us at the very least that the dominant way we ought to talk about it, barring cultural differences that make it harder to communicate, is through that kind of terminology.
But more than that... if the bible doesn't speak of God's emotions towards Jesus on the cross being anything like anger, what liberty do we have to do so? We can, I suppose, assume that God had some kind of emotional response to the guilt of sin being in the flesh of Jesus to be condemned - although even there we have to be cautious when assuming things about God that revelation doesn't speak of. But I very much doubt that that emotional response was exactly the same as his emotional response to an unjustified sinner. I imagine His emotional response was a lot more complex than our formulations allow, and I don't want to make statements about what that means until I actually have good grounds for thinking that I know!
I just want to remain a lot more agnostic about what exactly God felt towards Jesus when he was on that cross - at least, until I'm shown that God has revealed something of what He felt.
Saturday, May 12, 2007
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
Trinity series
Over at my friend Dan Hames' blog, he has just written a series of trinity - in other words, typing up the notes from Mike Reeves' talks on the subject at Word Alive. I'll link to them for convenience. I think Mike's talks on the subject are brilliant - a really great fairly entry level account of the subject, which is actually really relevant and important to Christianity. How can who God is not be important?
Trinity 1
Trinity 2
Trinity 3
Trinity 4
I heartily recommend them for your reading pleasure. (I also have the CD's of the original talks to borrow, if anyone wants them.)
Trinity 1
Trinity 2
Trinity 3
Trinity 4
I heartily recommend them for your reading pleasure. (I also have the CD's of the original talks to borrow, if anyone wants them.)
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
Why I'm voting Labour on Thursday in Selly Oak
Well, I doubt too many of you will be massively surprised to discover that I'm planning on voting labour on thursday the 3rd of May. I am, after all, a member of the labour party. What I think might be more interesting is why I plan on doing so - which is partly explained by why I'm a member of the labour party.
Roughly there are three things that motivate people to vote for a particular party in an election - firstly, there's their opinion about national politics - secondly, there's the strength of local parties - and thirdly, there's the strength of the individual candidates. I'll go through them one by one.
National politics
One reason why people often choose to vote is because of national politics. I think that the way this is done is often unhelpful, and that is especially the case in this election, but people often do.
Local elections are often used to 'punish' parties for short term things, even by people who expect to vote for that party in the long term. That's a particularly foolish thing to do at present - we expect a new labour leader within weeks of Blair standing down, and this leader will likely make changes - but in general I think the facts of political campaigning mean that it's not that helpful. Thing is, local councillors are in many ways the 'skeleton' of a local party base - losing it means losing a significant part of local campaigning and thus damages a parties electoral chances long term (well... long term in terms of politics, anyway, where time I feel passes quicker than it often does in other spheres). Similarly, gaining councillors can contribute towards the skeleton of a local party base, giving the party political advantage in the long term. So if one is to vote on the basis of national politics, one should vote on the basis of long term politics, and not just use it as a chance to give a party a kicking even though actually you prefer them to the opposition.
I believe in the values of the labour party, and I believe that we're the best party to lead the country towards .
Long term, for the forseeable future we're looking to a party almost certainly led by Gordon Brown, who is generally agreed to have been a success as chancellor (George Osborne - Tory shadow Chancellor - has given a lot of helpful quotes about how great he is, referring to "Labour's success on macroeconomic policy", and saying of Gordon Brown's reforms that "we must recognise that these developments have improved the macroeconomic management of the UK economy." The tories try to argue against this within parliament or to the generally economically illiterate public, but he makes these kinds of statements when addressing the business community - where he would lose his credibility otherwise.) He's reduced long term unemployment by three quarters, he's introduced tax credits for those who are least well off, he's introduced the minimum wage...
In all these ways, Gordon Brown has shown a great commitment to what is certainly by a long long way the most important political issue in the bible - the issue of poverty, which to my mind outweighs the sum total of all other political issues. Poverty is mentioned more in the bible than prayer. In todays political climate, like in most, poverty should be our number one concern.
But Gordon Brown hasn't just been interested in poverty in Britain. He's widely recognised as someone who cares very deeply about global poverty - I've seen even Ken Clarke (former tory chancellor, who is brilliant at being a straight talker - aside from party and policies, I love him) acknowledge this. Global poverty matters a whole lot more than national poverty, and I don't think many people will question making that our number one concern. Here's what Kofi Annan (ex UN secretary general) has written about him in an introduction to a book of his speeches:
A number of people are likely to consider him bad because of the UK's role in Iraq, which they were against. I'd argue against that kind of thought, for a number of reasons. Firstly, although I do think Iraq has turned out very bad, I don't think it was remotely clear cut at the time. All developed countries believed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction (even members of his own government and military, actually, it still seems!) - even if one of Tony Blair's aides 'sexed up' the evidence to back up the claim. Blair's gone in a few weeks, and no-one has associated Brown with that decision. Pretty much nobody expected Iraq to turn out as bad as it has, and for several years after the invasion Iraqi polls showed a majority of Iraqi's supporting the invasion on humanitarian grounds - granted, that's now changed with the unexpected deterioration of the event, but it shows how bad Iraq was and how it seemed like a sensible thing to do at the time. Remember the partying in the streets? The consequences of Iraq have been politically useful for the enemies of our party, but it's not as clear cut as opposition parties would make out. Even the Tories supported it! And the lib dems, the only party to oppose it, are just crazy (... I would say loony, but the Monster Raving Loony party have in the past complained when people used that term of them, as they consider it offensive to be compared with the Lib Dems - which is fair enough, really!)
Furthermore, it's also probable that Gordon was much more cautious than Blair on that issue, and was only convinced of the need to go to war quite late - at the "eleventh hour". It might be that, had the cabinet been made up differently (ie by people he had chosen), he would have been convinced otherwise.
It's become fashionable to bash Labour, and whatever party is in power is always going to get a lot of kicking from the media, but we've done lots of great things - our biggest mistake, Iraq, was one very easily made given the facts as they were known at the time - and on the most important current issue of global poverty, any labour government - particularly a brown led one - will be streets ahead of any opposition.
City-wide politics
Another is the nature of local politics in a particular city. Now, here, I think the ground is less clear-cut than in either of the other sections. Local parties are very different to national parties, have very different policies to them (because policy at a local level is so different), and vary hugely from year to year. At present, I really have no idea as to which local party would do a better job running birmingham at present. The current ruling tory-lib dem coalition have done a lot of good things in many policy areas, but I'm convinced that as a Christian I should be supporting certain policy areas - particularly concerning helping the disadvantaged - to the exclusion to other, more common priorities in the world of politics. And I'm aware
However - the tory-lib dem alliance is so far ahead both in numbers of councillors (I believe the ruling coalition have 41+33=74 councillors, to our 44) and in electoral intent (ie people intend to vote against us because they're angry with us), that there's virtually no chance of us winning back on a local level for some years yet, by which time who knows what will happen anyway? The council, and the city, will have changed a large amount in that time.
The local candidate
Lastly, I think one of the best reasons to vote labour is our local candidate, verses the other local candidates. The tories are a virtual nonentity in selly oak - it's a fight between Labour and the Lib Dems. All three of the current councillors are Lib Dem, but our candidate - David Williams - has served two terms in the past and thus has experience. He seems to me to be streets ahead of anyone else in the local party, as far as I know them, and certainly a whole lot better than the current lib dems.
In terms of political ideology, he's probably quite a bit more left wing and old labour than this Brownite (it's really odd being addressed as "comrade" by him in letters!), but none of what I see as the destructive aspects of that form of ideology should be remotely under his remit. What will be, though, is acting as a leader and representative for the local community, and in this he is significantly better than the current liberal democrats. In fact, he cares so much about this that he's been politically active in representing the community in issues where the liberal democrats haven't - despite the fact that the lib dems get paid to do it, and he doesn't! He's very much a community man who will work hard to represent the selly oak community and who I thoroughly believe can do it.
Roughly there are three things that motivate people to vote for a particular party in an election - firstly, there's their opinion about national politics - secondly, there's the strength of local parties - and thirdly, there's the strength of the individual candidates. I'll go through them one by one.
National politics
One reason why people often choose to vote is because of national politics. I think that the way this is done is often unhelpful, and that is especially the case in this election, but people often do.
Local elections are often used to 'punish' parties for short term things, even by people who expect to vote for that party in the long term. That's a particularly foolish thing to do at present - we expect a new labour leader within weeks of Blair standing down, and this leader will likely make changes - but in general I think the facts of political campaigning mean that it's not that helpful. Thing is, local councillors are in many ways the 'skeleton' of a local party base - losing it means losing a significant part of local campaigning and thus damages a parties electoral chances long term (well... long term in terms of politics, anyway, where time I feel passes quicker than it often does in other spheres). Similarly, gaining councillors can contribute towards the skeleton of a local party base, giving the party political advantage in the long term. So if one is to vote on the basis of national politics, one should vote on the basis of long term politics, and not just use it as a chance to give a party a kicking even though actually you prefer them to the opposition.
I believe in the values of the labour party, and I believe that we're the best party to lead the country towards .
Long term, for the forseeable future we're looking to a party almost certainly led by Gordon Brown, who is generally agreed to have been a success as chancellor (George Osborne - Tory shadow Chancellor - has given a lot of helpful quotes about how great he is, referring to "Labour's success on macroeconomic policy", and saying of Gordon Brown's reforms that "we must recognise that these developments have improved the macroeconomic management of the UK economy." The tories try to argue against this within parliament or to the generally economically illiterate public, but he makes these kinds of statements when addressing the business community - where he would lose his credibility otherwise.) He's reduced long term unemployment by three quarters, he's introduced tax credits for those who are least well off, he's introduced the minimum wage...
In all these ways, Gordon Brown has shown a great commitment to what is certainly by a long long way the most important political issue in the bible - the issue of poverty, which to my mind outweighs the sum total of all other political issues. Poverty is mentioned more in the bible than prayer. In todays political climate, like in most, poverty should be our number one concern.
But Gordon Brown hasn't just been interested in poverty in Britain. He's widely recognised as someone who cares very deeply about global poverty - I've seen even Ken Clarke (former tory chancellor, who is brilliant at being a straight talker - aside from party and policies, I love him) acknowledge this. Global poverty matters a whole lot more than national poverty, and I don't think many people will question making that our number one concern. Here's what Kofi Annan (ex UN secretary general) has written about him in an introduction to a book of his speeches:
Gordon Brown is one of a small group of political leaders who first embraced the notion that our current generation has the power and the know-how to overcome world poverty. Over the past decade, he has used his influence to place the case for development firmly on the agenda of the developed world. He has been a source of innovation and ideas for new forms of international development cooperation. He has been a driving force in making things happen, showing how the international community can deliver on promises, from debt relief to the genuine scaling-up of development assistance. And he has done this at a make-or-break time for the Millenium Development Goals - and for the world's poor.
It goes without saying, therefore, that the speeches of Gordon Brown are vivid testimony to a rare combination of vision, commitment, and action. He was among the first to champion the need for an additional $50 billion a year in overseas development assistance. He has fought tirelessly - and sometimes single-handedly - for debt relief, including on multicultural debt owed to international financial institutions. He was the first finance minister to back the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. He championed the use of public guarantees to raise market finance for development. And he was instrumental in creating the pilot International Finance Facility (IFF) for immunisation.
A staunch but not uncritical ally of the United Nations, Gordon Brown is playing a leading role in my High-level Panel on UN System-wide Coherence, charged with exploring ways to make the UN family work more effectively around the world in the areas of development, humanitarian asistance and the environment. And through the UK's $15-billion commitment to ensure universal primary education by 2015, he is yet again demonstrating why it matters to men, women and children in poor countries that finance ministers in rich ones care about development. Because of him, more children are being immunised, more families are escaping poverty and more people have access to safe drinking water. In short, he has been a finance minister who has also spoken and acted like a development minister, and all the world is richer for it.
A number of people are likely to consider him bad because of the UK's role in Iraq, which they were against. I'd argue against that kind of thought, for a number of reasons. Firstly, although I do think Iraq has turned out very bad, I don't think it was remotely clear cut at the time. All developed countries believed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction (even members of his own government and military, actually, it still seems!) - even if one of Tony Blair's aides 'sexed up' the evidence to back up the claim. Blair's gone in a few weeks, and no-one has associated Brown with that decision. Pretty much nobody expected Iraq to turn out as bad as it has, and for several years after the invasion Iraqi polls showed a majority of Iraqi's supporting the invasion on humanitarian grounds - granted, that's now changed with the unexpected deterioration of the event, but it shows how bad Iraq was and how it seemed like a sensible thing to do at the time. Remember the partying in the streets? The consequences of Iraq have been politically useful for the enemies of our party, but it's not as clear cut as opposition parties would make out. Even the Tories supported it! And the lib dems, the only party to oppose it, are just crazy (... I would say loony, but the Monster Raving Loony party have in the past complained when people used that term of them, as they consider it offensive to be compared with the Lib Dems - which is fair enough, really!)
Furthermore, it's also probable that Gordon was much more cautious than Blair on that issue, and was only convinced of the need to go to war quite late - at the "eleventh hour". It might be that, had the cabinet been made up differently (ie by people he had chosen), he would have been convinced otherwise.
It's become fashionable to bash Labour, and whatever party is in power is always going to get a lot of kicking from the media, but we've done lots of great things - our biggest mistake, Iraq, was one very easily made given the facts as they were known at the time - and on the most important current issue of global poverty, any labour government - particularly a brown led one - will be streets ahead of any opposition.
City-wide politics
Another is the nature of local politics in a particular city. Now, here, I think the ground is less clear-cut than in either of the other sections. Local parties are very different to national parties, have very different policies to them (because policy at a local level is so different), and vary hugely from year to year. At present, I really have no idea as to which local party would do a better job running birmingham at present. The current ruling tory-lib dem coalition have done a lot of good things in many policy areas, but I'm convinced that as a Christian I should be supporting certain policy areas - particularly concerning helping the disadvantaged - to the exclusion to other, more common priorities in the world of politics. And I'm aware
However - the tory-lib dem alliance is so far ahead both in numbers of councillors (I believe the ruling coalition have 41+33=74 councillors, to our 44) and in electoral intent (ie people intend to vote against us because they're angry with us), that there's virtually no chance of us winning back on a local level for some years yet, by which time who knows what will happen anyway? The council, and the city, will have changed a large amount in that time.
The local candidate
Lastly, I think one of the best reasons to vote labour is our local candidate, verses the other local candidates. The tories are a virtual nonentity in selly oak - it's a fight between Labour and the Lib Dems. All three of the current councillors are Lib Dem, but our candidate - David Williams - has served two terms in the past and thus has experience. He seems to me to be streets ahead of anyone else in the local party, as far as I know them, and certainly a whole lot better than the current lib dems.
In terms of political ideology, he's probably quite a bit more left wing and old labour than this Brownite (it's really odd being addressed as "comrade" by him in letters!), but none of what I see as the destructive aspects of that form of ideology should be remotely under his remit. What will be, though, is acting as a leader and representative for the local community, and in this he is significantly better than the current liberal democrats. In fact, he cares so much about this that he's been politically active in representing the community in issues where the liberal democrats haven't - despite the fact that the lib dems get paid to do it, and he doesn't! He's very much a community man who will work hard to represent the selly oak community and who I thoroughly believe can do it.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)