Protest Against Reconciliation Caricature

Originally posted on July 07, 2007 – by Andre Piet

In the Nederlands Dagblad (Dutch Newspaper) I read the following report (from which I quote a portion):

In English evangelical circles, a discussion has arisen about reconciliation. Here and there, theologians are questioning the view that Jesus’ death on the cross was necessary to bear the punishment for sin. “I can’t relate to the image of an angry Father punishing His innocent Son.”

LONDON – In England, a major evangelical Bible study conference for youth has been canceled because the involved organizations could not agree on the admission of a speaker who holds unconventional ideas about reconciliation.

“Cosmic child abuse.” That is the term used by Steve Chalke, evangelical pastor, author, and founder of various organizations, to express why he cannot accept the idea that Jesus went to the cross against His will to bear the sin of humanity. What kind of Father punishes His innocent child, Chalke asks. “Wouldn’t it be inconsistent for God to warn us not to bear grudges against one another, while at the same time He Himself burns with rage against sin and sinners? I’d rather believe that God practices what He Himself teaches.”

With this, Chalke is rising up against the theology of penal substitution (substitutionary punishment), an English theological term for a specific development within the Western church of the idea that Christ’s suffering atoned for sin. “I can’t relate to the image of an angry Father punishing His innocent Son.”

In his explanation of Christ’s death on the cross, Chalke himself places more emphasis on the victory of the Father and the Son over the realm of Satan, and the new life that emerges from it.

That concludes this report.
I do not know Steve Chalke, nor do I know what arguments he puts forward for his claim. But I do know that he is absolutely right to criticise the idea of ‘penal substitution’. The study day I held last May in Rijnsburg was to a large extent also focused on that topic. The idea that Jesus had to die as retribution to God, because otherwise He would not be able to forgive, stands in stark contrast to what I learn from Scripture.

Jesus did not pay a price to God, but a ransom to the adversary who held us captive.
Humanity crucified Jesus – God raised Him (Acts 2:23,24). The resurrection of Jesus Christ is the Divine answer to the greatest injustice ever committed: God is not reckoning it to the world (2 Cor. 5:19). That is forgiveness! This demonstration of God’s Love will, in due time, fully reconcile the hostile world (Col. 1:20).

The idea that God had to appease His wrath and that Jesus functioned in that as a ‘lightning rod’, is undoubtedly a caricature of the Biblical representation.

Steve Chalke is absolutely right when he says: “I can’t relate to the image of an angry Father punishing His innocent Son.”
Fortunately, it is nowhere to be found in the Bible.

See also: ransom or debt payment?

Delen: