One of the things I noticed during my time in England is the way in which English evangelicals cannot stop alluding to and referencing the work of Jesus in terms of the penal substitutionary model. Even when a text does not teach this view of the atonement, they will tend to smuggle it in somehow – which is not a problem necessarily: preachers ought to show how texts connect with the whole of theology. The PSA has been a matter of great controversy amongst English evangelicals of late, and I couldn't help thinking that there was some over-reacting going both ways. That is, the depictions of the PSA by the opponents (Chalke and Mann, Joel Green) were pathetic caricatures of PSA as it is explained by the likes of Stott and Packer. But, then again, if the emphasis in hymns, preaching, service leading and prayers is anything to go by, then this model of the atonement, whatever one might say about its centrality and indispensability, was being over-emphasised to the point of cliché.
And what is more, a point of intra-church dispute has an effect on evangelism. One of the reasons that the critics of PSA have come forward is their concern that this depiction of the atonement has lost traction in terms of mission; that it was nonsensical and irrelevant in terms of contemporary western (and other cultures). The response? Well, conservatives ONLY evangelise in terms of PSA – figuring I guess that the manifest errors of our critics mean that the opposite of what they say must be all the more true.
So, I was intrigued to read this in Packer's essay 'What did the cross achieve?' -
…constricted in interest by the preoccupations of controversy, and absorbed in the task of proclaiming the one vital truth about the cross which others disregarded or denied, 'upholders of the penal theory have sometimes so stressed the thought that Christ bore our penalty that they have found room for nothing else. Rarely have they in theory denied the value of other theories, but sometimes they have in practice ignored them.(citing Leon Morris). p. 26
My experience indicates that this tendency is still in evidence, alas…
9 comments:
Excellent post. Do you think this view is restricted to England?
I noticed it much much more in England. I have never noticed it much here in Oz. Partly, evangelicals in Sydney aren't tuned to this controversy (so, we are far more likely to mention repeatedly something about the true meaning of worship, or gender roles!) in the same way the evangelicals in the UK are. Also, there are deeper roots in the eighteenth/nineteenth century evangelical movement and its piety in the UK than here (perhaps).
I noticed it much much more in England. I have never noticed it much here in Oz. Partly, evangelicals in Sydney aren't tuned to this controversy (so, we are far more likely to mention repeatedly something about the true meaning of worship, or gender roles!) in the same way the evangelicals in the UK are. Also, there are deeper roots in the eighteenth/nineteenth century evangelical movement and its piety in the UK than here (perhaps).
Do you think an over-emphasis on PSA leads to difficulty in Christians understanding the NT emphasis on being 'in Christ', us being in union with him - since PSA is about what Christ did instead of us, in disunion with us? So it's hard to relate the ongoing Christian life to the moment we were saved?
Well, an overemphasis could lead to this problem yes. Same is true in the imputation debate. Union with Christ has to be the context of it.
Ha Ha. I have to say that I've noticed it in Sydney, especially when it comes to evangelism/mission. I do have quite a limited experience though.
So, the hard question. If a person/group is emphasizing PSA to the point of excluding other models, and this is detrimental to their evangelism/mission/ (pastoral care too probably), how do you go about correcting this without being lumped and labelled with those who oppose PSA. To be overly practical, what kind of percentage of emphasis is still kosher?
Well, percentage is not a great way to look at it. I think a) you have to be text-driven, but theological - so, if it ain't taught in the text, go with what IS being said about Jesus' death in the text
b) DO keep emphasising and teaching PSA where it comes up...and its elements: a strong teaching on the wrath of God and his determination to punish sin, for example
A couple of observations. (a) This kind of emphasis on PSA normally involves an emphasis on particular ways of explaining it, such that the absense of such an explanation from a sermon is said to be an absense of "the gospel". I've heard some great, faithful sermons written off simply because there was no explanation of PSA, even if the passage under consideration did not feature it.
(b) More tentatively, I suspect some of this over-emphasis comes from ministries that have been overly influenced by traditional summer camps. A summer-camp model of ministry applied to the local church will often be coming back to the same simple and cherished PSA formulations. At its best, this will have a powerful evangelistic ministry for the fringes of the church. At its worst, such ministry never quite trusts that you've been converted.
Post a Comment