Today I’m wondering why so often there is such a big gap between what everyday Christians think about the “atonement” (the reason why Jesus died for ours sins) and what theologians and preachers mean by it, especially those who are part of “penal substitutionary atonement” churches and traditions.
This gap is seen in the answers we get from two kinds of questions.
First Implicit Question: Does the Good Son Step Between Us and the Wrathful Father-God?
Why does Jesus need to die for our sins? On a popular level some people respond with, “Because the Father was angry at us/me, but the Son stepped in to take the penalty.”
As the thought goes, God the Father is holy, perfect, and demanding, and because we sinned the Father is now full of anger and wrath toward us.
But thankfully, like a good, loving, older brother, Jesus (who is also God) steps in and de-escalates the situation but taking care of the Father’s wrath.
Second Implicit Question: Is Jesus’ Death Divine Child Abuse?
Now if the first scenario is the picture of atonement, then it is an easy connection, especially if you have suffered abuse or trauma, to think that this entails some sort of divine child abuse.
As the thought goes: God is full of uncontrollable wrath toward a world of sin and takes it out on his one and only Son by killing him.
That sounds like a horrible distortion of gospel. And yet many (implicitly or not) interpret the gospel message this way.
(Yes, these questions rest on insufficient trinitarian theology, which I’ll address in another post.)
Why This Big Gap?
This gap probably comes from the “internal working models” of the people in the pew who interpret this kind of gospel with a fight/flight/freeze response.
Older ways of saying this is that there is a gap between head (explicit) knowledge and heart (internal working model) knowledge.
A Better Way
And these semi-automatic responses aren’t going to stop because of better theology.
They are transformed through better relationships, better engagement with the whole person (body and emotions), and better communal practices that really follow the path of Jesus (forgiveness, reconciliation, justice, peace, generosity, etc.)
So really, better preaching of the gospel requires better churches.
Only then will the captives be set free.
(For a free mini-course expanding your understanding of why Jesus died, see The Forgotten Reasons for Jesus’ Death — it’s a distilled version of my lectures at Northern Seminary on the atonement.)
Other Posts on the Atonement:
What is a Sacrifice of Atonement?
What We Get Wrong About the Blood of Jesus
Is God Cruel For Sending the Son to Die?
One reply on “Does the Good Son Step Between Us and the Wrathful Father-God?”
When I listen to or read the way Christians talk it tells me what we really believe. Growing up we used Saved or Born Again, both of which focus on being reclaimed and becoming a new person. Others said, “I was converted” as a focus on turning from rebellion to follow Jesus. Still others, mostly preachers, used forgiven as a focus on justification from guilt. A few focused on being a king’s kid as a member of the family of God with a new identity.
The theologian James Kallas suggests that each of these represents one of three a traditional theological views of atonement. Born again from Bondage; Converted from rebellion; Forgiven for our Guilt; and a fourth modern view, Adopted to overcome Shame.
Few people and few systems actually embrace substitutionary atonement in practice. Calvin’s focus is Bondage; Roman Catholics is Guilt; Wesley and to some extent Luther is Rebellion; The Asian and Pastoral Care folks focus on Adoption.
In my view, scripture teaches all four.