Was the Substitutionary Death of Christ Cosmic Child Abuse?
This past Sunday I walked an old path with the folks in my church; the path of the death of Christ, by which He took the curse due to our sins upon Himself, by dying in our place. I meant to add a few thoughts regarding a perspective on the atonement that is gaining footing among some in the emergent church movement and other contexts.
It may be surprising to some that the teaching that God's Son was punished for the sins of others is not popular among many--even many who claim the name "Christian". In fact this teaching, which Christians have long called the substitutionary vicarious, atoning, propitiating death of Christ, is meeting with open horror and disdain.
Some suggest that the idea that God would punish His Son for our sins is equivalent to "cosmic child abuse". Friends, such a perspective reflects at the very least a woeful ignorance of basic Bible truth. For example, one fact that the Word repeats often is that while the death of Christ was God's way of punishing our sins without punishing us, it was not a unilateral act of the Father forced onto the Son. Philippians 2:7, 8 makes it clear that the Son humbled Himself and offered Himself for us. In John 10:17, 18 Jesus tells us that He laid down His life of His own accord.
This simple Bible observation--which any careful reader of the Word can see--makes the charge of "cosmic child abuse" patently absurd. The death of Christ for His people's sins was neither coerced nor forced nor imposed on the Son by the Father. It was a voluntary act of the Son in cooperation with the Father, born out of the Triune God's amazing love for His people. Any who miss this point simply are not reading their Bible's closely at all. Worse they are insulting God, insinuating things evil to the Almighty Father in heaven. At best those who make this charge are missing out on one of the sweeter truths of our faith; at worst they are slandering God out of ignorance.
O my friends: Jesus died for our sins means exactly what it means. We are sinners deserving to die under the eternal curse of God's judgment, but Jesus volunteered to take our place becoming a curse for us. Anything but cosmic child abuse, this is the ultimate expression of Divine love--from the Father to us, and from the Father to the Son in that the Son is now exalted in the place of highest honor to reward His high and infinite sacrifice of love for our sakes.
Let us not slander God with words ill-spoken. instead let us worship God for love beyond degree.
It may be surprising to some that the teaching that God's Son was punished for the sins of others is not popular among many--even many who claim the name "Christian". In fact this teaching, which Christians have long called the substitutionary vicarious, atoning, propitiating death of Christ, is meeting with open horror and disdain.
Some suggest that the idea that God would punish His Son for our sins is equivalent to "cosmic child abuse". Friends, such a perspective reflects at the very least a woeful ignorance of basic Bible truth. For example, one fact that the Word repeats often is that while the death of Christ was God's way of punishing our sins without punishing us, it was not a unilateral act of the Father forced onto the Son. Philippians 2:7, 8 makes it clear that the Son humbled Himself and offered Himself for us. In John 10:17, 18 Jesus tells us that He laid down His life of His own accord.
This simple Bible observation--which any careful reader of the Word can see--makes the charge of "cosmic child abuse" patently absurd. The death of Christ for His people's sins was neither coerced nor forced nor imposed on the Son by the Father. It was a voluntary act of the Son in cooperation with the Father, born out of the Triune God's amazing love for His people. Any who miss this point simply are not reading their Bible's closely at all. Worse they are insulting God, insinuating things evil to the Almighty Father in heaven. At best those who make this charge are missing out on one of the sweeter truths of our faith; at worst they are slandering God out of ignorance.
O my friends: Jesus died for our sins means exactly what it means. We are sinners deserving to die under the eternal curse of God's judgment, but Jesus volunteered to take our place becoming a curse for us. Anything but cosmic child abuse, this is the ultimate expression of Divine love--from the Father to us, and from the Father to the Son in that the Son is now exalted in the place of highest honor to reward His high and infinite sacrifice of love for our sakes.
Let us not slander God with words ill-spoken. instead let us worship God for love beyond degree.
Labels: Atonement, Emergent Church, Gospel
posted by Tim Shorey at
3:16 PM
5 Comments:
Tim, I am somewhat ignorant of the message of the emergent church. Is it actually the case that they shy away from these doctrines of the atonement? Is it because they fear that focusing on the death of Christ may offend the unchurched ("seeker sensitive" I believe they call it?) Or do they object on biblical grounds?
This is amazing...
Fact is that many in the emergent movement stand against virtually all doctrine, opting instead for a more post-modern approach to all things religious of dialogue over doctrine, listening rather than proclaiming, being sympathetic to people's ambiguities rather than being so arrogant as to declare truth.
Consequently not only the atonement but much of real Christianity is up for redefinition or dismissal.
DeYoung and Kluck's "Why We're Not Emergent" Is a helpful read...
Peter, here is an example of what Tim is referrring to as stated by Steve Chalke, one of the leaders in the emerging church movement: “The fact is that the cross isn't a form of cosmic child abuse—a vengeful Father, punishing his Son for an offence he has not even committed. Understandably, both people inside and outside of the Church have found this twisted version of events morally dubious and a huge barrier to faith. Deeper than that, however, is that such a concept stands in total contradiction to the statement: ‘God is love’. If the cross is a personal act of violence perpetrated by God towards humankind but borne by his Son, then it makes a mockery of Jesus' own teaching to love your enemies and to refuse to repay evil with evil.” (Steve Chalke and Alan Mann, The Lost Message of Jesus, [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2003], pp. 182-183).
Another leader, perhaps the key leader in this movement, Brian McLaren, has endorsed this kind of thinking, and has echoed it in his own writing and speaking.
In addition to the excellent book Tim mentioned (perhaps the best one to start with), D.A. Carson has written on this issue. His book is "Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church: Understanding a Movement and it's Implications". If you want to read further after "Why We're Not Emergent", this book would be very highly recommended.
We all need to be reminded again and again, it seems, of the apostle's words to the church leaders in Acts 20:29-30: "I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things to draw away the disciples after them".
Thank you Bruce for the helpful comments and quotes. May all who read be aware and alert. The issues are huge, and the dangers are real.
Tim
This is simply unbelievable...
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home