Atonement revisited

The theory of the atonement often called "penal substitution" has justifiably been under some scrutiny lately. It claims that Jesus died as an innocent victim in our place to appease or satisfy the wrath of an angry God...

The debate came to the fore some time ago when a well-known evangelical, Steve Chalke, claimed in his book The Lost Message of Jesus that the idea of a vengeful and vindictive God that is at odds with the revelation of Jesus Christ in the gospels. A bit of a backlash followed.

More recently, essays in a book called Consuming Passion continued the critique.

Now, there is material in the New Testament which points to such a theory of the atonement. Critics of the theory argue, however, that it is not the preponderant metaphor or image for the significance of the atonement in the New Testament; that, historically, it did not come into significant play in the traditions of the church until Anselm in the eleventh century; and that, even if it is there, it speaks wrongly, or is capable of being understood wrongly as speaking, of a vengeful God, whereas God is above all a God of love.

And thus, as is so often the case, the stage has seemed set between 'conservatives' and 'liberals', the former wishing to defend what they see as the primary understanding of crucifixion and resurrection, the latter wanting to promote other models, especially the 'Christus Victor' model, which speaks of Christ's victory on the cross over sin, death and suffering, and the model of Christ as obedient servant, whom we folllow as an example.

James Alison is a Roman Catholic priest theologian of some note. He has the uncanny ability to take orthodox traditions of the Church and recast them in provocative, productive ways. In his recent book Undergoing God he has done just that (in chapter 3) in relation to the atonement, and to substitution in particular.

This book is quite a demanding read. But conveniently this chapter, which is more accessible than a lot of the book,  can be found at his website at this page  (strictly speaking, the chapter of the book came out of a lecture Alison gave in 2004, and it's the lecture you'll find on his website). It's well worth a read, because it takes a debate which has become polarized and hence unhelpful and recasts it in ways which both 'sides' of the argument might find helpful.