In my last blog post here, I started to look at some models of atonement which are older than Penal Substitution, the idea that Jesus' death on the cross somehow paid a price to make us at one with God. And what was interesting about all of those models is that they are all flawed in one way or another.
Now that we've lived with the idea of Penal Substitution for about five hundred years, maybe it's time for us to admit that it, too, is flawed.
I am in my fifth decade on God's green Earth, and in that time I've seen quite a few changes. I remember a time when we could smoke in pubs, when we didn't recycle everything, and being wedged in the boot (trunk for my transatlantic readers) of a car along with a half dozen other children on days out. I remember a time before seatbelt laws, before speed cameras, and when lunchtime drinking wasn't just the norm, but encouraged.
And I'm not nostalgic for those times at all, they were not the 'good old days'. How we survived that, let alone the Cold War and the threat of immanent nuclear destruction, is nothing short of a miracle. I am Gen X through and through, I am of the jilted generation and Rock and Roll is my epiphany, a culture of alienation, boredom, and despair.
The Cold War was the zeitgeist of my generation: To secure peace, we prepared for war.
Another great moment of nostalgia in my childhood was being smacked. Regularly.
If I break something accidentally, that's a smacking. If I say a bad word reserved only for adult use, that's a smacking. And heaven forbid I get into a fight on the school yard, that's definitely a smacking.
And there's a problem here. We teach children from an early age that the antidote to violence is more violence. That when they do something bad, they have to experience something bad. And this is problematic. This teaches that whoever is best at violence, whoever holds the biggest stick, is ultimately the source for good.
This ideology has followed us into the church, and it's affected how we see Jesus.
I'm not saying that we follow a warmonger Jesus, a God who is constantly stood there with a big stick waiting to beat us; this is far more subtle.
We sometimes fall into the trap of seeing a very bad thing in a very good light, because it has yielded a good result.
This is most prevalent in our understanding of the crucifixion.
I'm not going to go down the line which Steve Chalke did: That a God who punishes an innocent son for the wrongs of others is guilty of cosmic child abuse, and is lacking justice, there's been enough written about that already. If you're interested in that, go and Google it.
Instead I want us to think about the message of violence inherent in Penal Substitution and our fascination with the Cross. Is violence the ultimate answer to the problem of wrong? Did God take a bad thing and make it good? Can a wrong become a right?
When I read the message of Jesus, it doesn't seem very violent to me.
There is a time when Jesus drives animals out of the temple because they were being sold at extortionate prices and gouging pilgrims, and some people have used that to excuse their own violent desires. I am not going to tell you how to read the Bible, but I don't think that's the message was Jesus trying to give us there.
Instead I read a message of love and forgiveness. A Jesus who breaks down cultural barriers and works for a unity between Judea and Samaritans, modern day Israel and Palestine as it were. I read about a Jesus who when accosted by Roman soldiers told His would be protector to put away his sword. I read about a Jesus who when offered great power, and even an opportunity to defend Himself against hateful accusations, remains passive; preferring silent and peaceful protest.
I really do struggle to see a warrior King Jesus in the mould of other would be revolutionaries who came before Him. Jesus seems to embody changing the world through love, and compassion, and reconciliation.
Now you can accuse me of being a hippy-dippy pacifist, and that's okay, I forgive you. But that really is the Jesus I read about in the Gospels. Someone who teaches us that when an assailant smacks us on our right cheek, to offer them our left. Someone who teaches that when an occupation troop forces us to carry their pack one kilometre, we carry it two.
So why does this master plan of God change when it comes to crucifixion? Why does God demand a brutal and violent death for Jesus?
I don't think it does.
Let's change where we begin looking at crucifixion. Let's stop saying it's a good and let's start by saying what it is: The unjust killing of someone who promoted peace.
And let's add to that. Let's imagine that when Jesus spoke, people actually listened. That they did follow the way outlined in the Bible and turned their swords into ploughs. That people sat up and paid attention to Jesus message of peace and decided to follow Him. Does that mean that had Jesus been successful in His message that God would have failed to save mankind? Would God have forgiven humanity had we not killed Jesus?
These last points are a near impossibility with penal substitution. Had Jesus not been crucified, had we not doled out violence on a peaceful revolutionary, then Jesus would never have 'died for our sins'.
Would love have won had love won?
Maybe this is why we need to rethink Penal Substitution. Maybe we need to address the crucifixion for what it is. A violence over peace. And I'm not sure that violence is the message Jesus preached. So maybe the crucifixion isn't the end of the story, and it most definitely isn't.
The church has long held this view, that's why a little something called The Resurrection is so important. That's why the church meets on Sundays, to remember the resurrection and not the crucifixion.
And we're going to be looking at just what this means next time. Please do come back.
No comments:
Post a Comment