Jeff Gill
How to consider the role of judgment
___
My mentor in seminary, Michael Kinnamon, liked to tell students the best dialogue takes place when we engage our opponents at their best, not at their worst.
For good or ill, I've since taken Michael's teaching to heart. Most people one disagrees with will say foolish and stupid things, and you can zoom in on those and make your retorts and responses all about their worst phrasing or framing. When you think about it, you can see where that's likely to end up.
The real art in constructive debate is to find the strongest, best case being made for the subject or viewpoint you're challenging, and go after that on level ground.
Obviously this can have political implications, but that's not where I want to go. Recently, Christianity Today had an extended essay about a theological perspective, what's generally called "penal substitutionary atonement" or PSA for short. Some say this isn't a perspective, it's simply the truth, Biblically speaking, about who God is and how redemption in Jesus Christ works.
However, not all Christians look at the saving role of Christ in the same way. All of Eastern Orthodoxy, for instance.
So the essayist approached the question in what I realized was an unusual way. He tried to assemble the best arguments both for and against, and compare them to each other. The strongest objections were raised from various angles, but without making assumptions about the mistakes or misunderstandings of the opposing side.
Reading this made me realize that so many discussions of PSA I've read over the years, both in published outlets and in recent years, online, have started with a boatload of assumptions, and pressed those about the bad faith or ignorance of those standing against the view proposed more than actually explaining why their understanding should prevail.
The heart of penal substitutionary atonement is a cluster of questions, or perhaps one big question, about the nature of God. And this essay reminded me that, at their best, proponents of PSA wish to give God the glory, to acknowledge the weight of God's power and presence over and against the place for our human choices. An evangelical, confessional perspective can run up against an unintentional elevation of our significance in the whole eternal drama of redemption. We can end up making our "yes" to God's intentions the key element in what Christians call salvation, and turn God into almost just an audience member of one, but with our acceptance and ourselves the central cast member on stage.
And one outcome of this sort of mischaracterization of God's role can be making the evangelistic decision the summit and conclusion and end of the drama of redemption, and eternity just a very long ovation in response to that act, an act on our part. PSA at its best puts God and eternity into proper perspective, and gives us a chance to see our choices as not the entire process, to understand our acceptance of God's free gift of love as part of a longer, ongoing journey in which God alone is in control.
At its worst? PSA can turn God into a particularly harsh judge on a very high bench, detached and even indifferent to the human condition and why we make the choices we do. Mind you, I said "at its worst." If you wish to debate PSA, just arguing against the legislative, punitive aspect of it might cause you to miss where there's something being said we need to hear.
We live in a time when judgment is freely offered all over the place. Thinking about how judgment is part of life in the largest sense of the meaning of our lives has a place, in any tradition. And to pivot just a bit, for any and all Jewish readers, blessings on your Yom Kippur which engages with much the same questions this week.
Jeff Gill is a writer, storyteller, and preacher in central Ohio; he's done his share of judging in his life, and accepts that he could be judged for that. Tell him how you regard judgment in time & eternity at knapsack77@gmail.com, or follow @Knapsack77 on Threads or Bluesky.
https://www.christianitytoday.com/2025/09/penal-substitutionary-atonement-debate-theology/
No comments:
Post a Comment