Barefoot in the wilderness
in search of understanding

Important pieces

Sven, in his Theology and Biblical Studies blog quotes a recent interview with NT Wright. In this, Wright discusses some of the troubling aspects of recent debates in the . In this case, we’re harking back to Chalke-gate – the furore in the evangelical church in the UK when a well-known evangelical dared to write a book in which he said that the concept of penal subsitution (a particular understanding of the ) was not only not biblical but even harmful and anti-Christian. This garnered him lots of criticism, even vitriol. Which is surprising, because Chalke was largely right in his assessment. Sadly, evangelicalism seems to have internalised penal substitution as not only a model of the atonement but the way in which the atonement works. They are blind to the other models used in the New Testament (to which penal substitution is entirely foreign – although other substitutionary models are found there).

The quotation from Wright I found particularly interesting, including this snippet, which has even wider applicability, I think. Whenever we allow part of the truth to become more important than the whole of the truth, we need to tread carefully.

Think of it like this. In a musical chord, the ‘third’ (in a chord of C major, this would be the note E) is the critical one that tells you many things, e.g. whether the music is major or minor, happy or sad. That E is vital if the music is to make the sense it does. But if the player plays the E and nothing else, the E no longer means what it’s meant to mean. Likewise, substitutionary atonement is a vital element in the gospel. Miss it out, and the music of the gospel is no longer what it should be. But if you only play that note you are in danger of setting up a different harmony altogether.

pax et bonum