Robert Thompson ViaMedia.News Marriage, Sabbath, Creation and Jesus’s Embodiment of Justice
Mark Clavier Well-Tempered Formed for Faithfulness: Recovering the Anglican Way of Life
Ian Gomersall A Retired Rector’s Reflections Asses and Bishops
Theo Hobson Me, a priest?
Lovely account of a calling to ordination by Theo Hobson I thought. So encouraging after reading the depressing waffle of Bishops’ meetings.
Thank you for Mark Clavier’s article. It gave me hope and encouragement.
First, Anglicanism is best understood as a formed way of life.People didn’t “choose” Anglicanism in the modern sense; they were gradually shaped by it. Through habit, ritual, and shared practice, attention, desire, and moral imagination were cultivated almost imperceptibly. Its deliberate pace—often mistaken for timidity—remains one of its greatest strengths. Second, worship is our centre of gravity.Common prayer is central, shaping devotion and focus over time rather than through flashes of emotion or spectacle. Liturgy quietly moulds character and teaches habits of faith. When worship is reduced to an experience or a spectacle, it loses the quiet, cumulative power that… Read more »
‘People didn’t “choose” Anglicanism in the modern sense; they were gradually shaped by it.’
The congregation I was serving when I retired had a considerable number of members who absolutely had chosen Anglicanism. Not every Anglican worshipper is a cradle Anglican.
Perhaps Clavier’s comment about people not choosing Anglicanism is a Church of England thing. But my experience is the same as yours, where many people have in fact chosen Anglicanism — perhaps it’s a North American thing. I’m a TEC member. In every church I’ve been a member (for decades and decades), the majority of parishioners did not grow up Anglican — they chose Anglicanism as a university student or as an adult. The same thing is true for the virtually all the priests I have known. A large proportion of people who have chosen Anglicanism in my experience were… Read more »
In my last parish, there was also a contingent who weren’t particularly looking for any specific denomination – they were just looking for a local church that had a warm welcome, genuine community, a Sunday School, enjoyable services, and half-decent sermons. They had no interest in the label on the side of the building.
Thanks, Tim. In my editing of the piece so that it was appropriate Substack length, I see that I inadvertently made that a kind of principle (which really makes no sense) rather than a historical description of Anglican (at least here in the UK). My congregations in the States were usually about 60/40 cradle Anglicans / Episcopalians. Even here in Wales, a significant minority weren’t raised Anglicans. What I wanted to emphasise is intergenerational, communal formation at the local level.
Thanks Mark, and thanks for the excellent articles too!
I find your analysis spot on, Mark, but find it hard to imagine a return to ‘formation’ in a church made up of the over 70s. I also wholly agree about the need to regain confidence about the core of the faith, which is what motivates many seeking to redefine that core, which at the same time seems to undermine the core of the faith for others. So I’m sure your emphasis on doing this work corporately is right. But what then seems to be required is a greater willingness to accept, respect and live with a multiplicity of theologies.… Read more »
That’s strikes me as a good place to begin! My next two instalments will explore a lot of this further. But what you say about the problem of our age demographic is important to acknowledge. While I know from first hand experience that even people over 70 can be profoundly formed, it’s obviously not ideal having so little purchase with younger age groups. All I can do is offer to signs of hope from my own ministry: First, I offer doctrinally rich talks in collective worship at the local primary school–delivered in a fun and relaxed way–and am continually impressed… Read more »
Sounds good.
Absolutely. but I would tend to think of it in terms of a single theology/faith, which is multi faceted. I would even avoid the word theology or doctrine – it is off putting. Doctrine sounds like a set of rules, theology sounds like endless academic waffle. To the person in the street. There is a lot of good in Alpha or similar, but it is a starter, not the main course. I may be looking for a local church which both preaches a meaty intellectually honest gospel and has a strong liturgy/music. Not sure if I will find one within… Read more »
I rather like being called a ‘geezer’. My mother did always say that I went from being 9 to 99.
While I agree that the confidence in Christ’s sovereignty is the main thing, our only way of really understanding what that means is through ‘a historically and culturally contingent ethos’ for each of us is a ‘historical and culturally contingent’ being. I’d like to think that Anglicanism offers one that’s worth recovering , appreciating, and nurturing.
In case the ecclesiastical train spotters and nit pickers start, I would like to say how I deeply valued your piece.
Beautifully lyrical, it expressed deep truth.
I suspect ‘Despondent’ is a person whose real name may be familiar.
Thank you.
I’m sorry but that’s not my experience at all. I did choose Anglicanism. Culturally brought up a Muslim I actively chose to be an Anglican in adulthood. I thought I was buying cricket in the green and cucumber sandwiches with a dose of God. I didn’t know I was getting lying despotic bishops with a side portion of child abuse but hey, you pays your money and makes your choice.
Mark Clavier asks: “How might we recover the habits that once shaped our life—worship that forms, stories that give meaning, pastoral care that binds communities, steady devotion that endures—in ways that make the Church compelling yet faithful, rooted yet responsive?” The CofE that held together Word and sacrament, Catholic order and Evangelical energy, seems unlikely to survive much beyond my boomer generation in England’s towns and cities where HTB Evangelicalism operates within its own ecclesiology – and with scarcely a nod to Anglican norms. It has the resources to be able to do so; and, crucially, episcopal endorsement. Mark… Read more »
When the choice is between either closing an Anglican church or inviting HTB in to turn it around, which would you chose?
Closure is obviously preferable. Or perhaps it could be used as an inclusive community centre for normal people.
Though not usually as forthright as FrDavid (who is?) I’m also not convinced closure wouldn’t be preferable. But how about a third option? HTB would be better than closure if a humility could be added into the mix. For years, HTB and Nicky Gumbell equivocated (at least publicly) on LLF. Equivocating is fine. I was very disappointed when they came out anti. But I’m asking for a humbler HTB more broadly, with a respect for churches with different theology and culture. Because some people want to move on in their faith and amazingly (uniquely?) the C of E offers alternatives.… Read more »
I think your suggestion is akin to HTB agreeing to abolishing itself. Now that would be a good idea!
“For example, admitting that there are different interpretations of the Atonement would mean rejection of 90% of the songs currently being sung.” Well no, I’ve never heard evangelicals sing “there is only one view of the Atonement”. They’re too busy singing about the truths they know of Jesus. And indeed the songs that they do sing (e.g. “on the cross as Jesus died; the wrath of God was satisfied”, “power, power wonder-working power of the blood of the lamb”, “Jesus paid it all. All to him I owe. sin has left a crimson stain – he washed it white as… Read more »
Those songs all express substitutionary / ransom views of the atonement. Some of them more strongly than others. I still vividly remember the first time I cam across the first one you cite — at a deanery service with a wide range of people present. I was astonished that anyone could write such words, and even more astonished that people would want to sing them. I wanted to shout out in protest, but I contented myself with looking round in some bewilderment with a shocked facial expression. I could see that a number of other people were also not singing.… Read more »
I am not familiar with the nuances of different theological strands, but when I check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substitutionary_atonement it appears that substitutionary atonement is a fairly widespread belief, although it appears penal substitution is more of an evangelical protestant view. The distinction between substitutionary atonement (Christ suffers for us) and penal substitution (Christ punished instead of us) seems to me to enter the realm of priests and pin heads. Maybe the wiki article was written by an evangelical….. I have a lot of sympathy for those who see these concepts as offensive, and an offense to the love of God. But these… Read more »
Other models of the atonement are commoner outside evangelical circles, and especially outside the western church. In the “Christus Victor” model Christ wins victory in his death on the Cross — victory over sin and evil, victory over Satan. In the “Moral Exemplar” model, Christ’s life and death provide for us a perfect example of how we are called to live. I am most certainly not a theologian, but my own (somewhat provisional) view is that a synthesis of these two models — which we might call Victor et Exemplar — provides the basis for a good alternative to substitutionary… Read more »
Hi Simon, I’m very grateful for your gracious hosting of these discussions.
I think it is a myth that Eastern Christians don’t believe in substitutionary atonement. If you’ve not read it recently, I would encourage you to re-read On the Incarnation by Athanasius. Most Eastern Christians see him as a foundational figure and he explains why he thinks that the cross as just a call to amendment and repentance is inadequate; and then clearly argues for substitutionary atonement.
Nice corrective. Thank you.
I think evangelicals include the Christus Victor model within their theology of atonement. Evangelicals certainly embrace the Moral Exemplar model.
What is the theological explanation of why God allowed his evolving creation to go in such a very wrong direction for countless ages before he decided to intervene so very recently? The Genesis myth suggests he set up Mankind to fail.
I would be grateful if you could suggest hymns and/or worship songs that reflect the moral influence view of atonement.
Genuinely curious, what great hymns are you thinking of? The older hymn writers I think of all seem pretty focussed on substitution: What Thou, my Lord, hast suffered was all for sinners’ gain; mine, mine was the transgression, but Thine the deadly pain. (O sacred head once wounded attributed to Bernard of Clairvaux) ‘Tis finished! The Messiah dies- cut off for sins, but not His own; accomplished is the sacrifice- the great redeeming work is done. (Charles Wesley) Oh, who am I, that for my sake my Lord should take frail flesh and die? … What may I say? Heav’n… Read more »
Strangely enough it was just that vein of 17th-century hymn-writing that I had in mind. In particular My song is love unknown is not explicitly about substitutionary atonement (and certainly not about penal substitution). I was going to quote it as capable of interpretation as proclaiming the Exemplar model — “love t the loveless shown that they might lovely be”. The English Hymnal tradition (and I’m looking at the Passiontode section of the Revised English Hymnal as I type this) contains a number of hymns which are much more ambiguous on the precise details of the atonement, thereby enabling them… Read more »
‘that for my sake’ seems pretty substitutionary to my ears.
That has been my favourite hymn since childhood! I have always understood Crossman’s line about Christ lying in my tomb as being a reference to substitution (and found it very moving). How do you understand that line?
I don’t read it as specifically referring to substitutionary atonement, but to atonement more generally. It can be understood in the Exemplar and Victor models too — Christ wins victory over death and sin so that we too can be victorious over death and sin. And as I said in another comment, Substitution and Ransom can be understood to have a secondary role, as part of the range of understanding, but as partial analogies not whole truths. So the gentler language of those models is consistent with my understanding. But the fully-fledged penal substitutionary model goes too far, and the… Read more »
Perhaps what is expressed and revealed on the Cross is the compassion and total self-giving of God in love – to the point of no turning back. That is where Jesus’s ministry of Love led him. And he didn’t turn back. It is also an act of ‘devotion’ (in the sense of sacrifice offered to God). The whole act of this devotion, as an example of God’s nature, is to reveal to us that it is in God that we find true compassionate and selfless Love. We are being drawn to God because God is so attractive. We know that… Read more »
I recall somone once saying, “For my sake” is not the same as “in my place.”
Well I have to say that I find myself in complete disagreement of this. I find that, at least in the English Hymnal, the moral and emotional influence theory is the main tenor of the hymnody relating to the passion. That is certainly what comes across in “When I survey the wondrous Cross”. The passiontide hymns of Father Faber even more clearly express this: e.g. ‘My God, my God, and can it be” EH101 ‘O come and mourn with me a while’ EH 111 Also W.Shirley ‘Sweet the moments rich in blessing’ EH 105 I find it rather difficult to… Read more »
my sins are identified as causing or contributing to the pains and insults inflicted on Our Lord in each scene. Is this substitution, or is this an emotional call on me to consider the seriousness of my selfishness and failings?
It is both. With caveats.
How do you interpret Romans?
Caricatures are easily found. Just came across this:
https://sharedveracity.net/tag/john-stott/
One short quote from that blog:
Stott also finds value in certain aspects of Peter Abelard’s “moral influence” theory of the atonement.
How do I interpret Romans? Could you be a bit more specific? I think chapter twelve is the most valuable part. the rest is just prologue and epilogue.
Chapters 3 and 5?
3:21-26?
And indeed the songs that they do sing (e.g. “on the cross as Jesus died; the wrath of God was satisfied”,
Locally we change this to: “the LOVE of God was satisfied” Does that help?
I investigated a bit, trying to make any sense, and found an article https://www.religion-online.org/book-chapter/chapter-6-at-one-ment/ , from which I quote: Paul Tillich (1954) comments on this doctrine as follows: ‘In spite of its theological weakness this remained the predominant doctrine of Western Christianity because of its psychological power’ (p. 14). The psychological power that Tillich refers to is that this system of symbols gives the individual the courage to accept himself in spite of his awareness that he is unacceptable. Tillich goes on to say that the proper relation between love and justice is not manifest in this legalistic form of… Read more »
Years ago I spent a pleasant session or five trying to tease out when a devotional theology supportive of a PS atonement theory emerged. It struck me that looking for material which emphasised the sufferings of Christ over the ‘Johannine’ Christ would be a place to start, and so far I’ve only got as far back as the early mediæval and Candidus of Fulda’s suggestion that we should meditate on the suffering Christ, rather than (say) the sentiments expressed in The Dream of the Rood or Venantius Fortunatus,.or even Justin the Martyr’s Ps 96 comment in the Dialogue with Trypho… Read more »
Isn’t there plenty of support in St. John’s gospel for PS atonement?
https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1249&context=lts_fac_pubs
Expiation v. propitiation I leave to another day.
This may be useful:
https://ctsfw.net/media/pdfs/gieschenthedeathofjesusinthegospelofjohn.pdf
“Expiation v. propitiation I leave to another day.”
I mentioned below the book “Two Views of the Cross: Orthodoxy and the West” (2022) by Frederica Mathewes-Green.
She says that the Greek term “hilasmos,” often translated as “propitiation” or “expiation” (based on Jerome’s Latin translation), really means “mercy.”
I leave to others who have a better knowledge of Greek that I do to determine how accurate her statement is.
You saw my other links which seem to indicate the east/west differences may not be as real as some imagine? Just slightly different emphases? Is not the scriptural clear, when read overall ? The problem is the caricatures. Maybe. Or being obsessive with details. The current Russian Orthodoxy as puppet of Putin is (maybe) a caricature. I used to belong to a prayer group praying for Russian Baptists in the 1970’s, dangerous times for them, bible smuggling. MLJ rails against expiation. Isn’t it strange that such foundational beliefs (in plural) are in dispute, and different factions cling to their particular… Read more »
https://www.religion-online.org/article/did-paul-teach-the-doctrine-of-the-atonement/
Useful, but I have a feeling of ‘complaining too much’ and maybe some straw persons.
N.T.Wright would approve. I have always considered wrath and love to be two sides of the same coin, Without wrath, the love of God collapses into a nice warm preaceful feeling, which people can find elsewhere. Yoga for example.
Then you’ll be pleased to know, Adrian, that my love for you complements my wrath.
How could I forget?
I think that change makes no sense at all.
Sometimes we can be too binary. Both the wrath of God and the love of God are active.
Spot on.
I said that all I wanted was “a humbler HTB with a respect for churches with different theology and culture”. Responses here would seem to underline the need for that! Just as in LLF, here too we have an appeal to our more traditional fellow Christians to recognise that theirs is not the only interpretation, and the message in the other direction is it’s ’my way or no way’. With regards songs, it’s not just a question of the words and theology of the songs but the psychological mode entered when singing them, which reinforces delusion and excludes rational doubt.… Read more »
Surely there must be an “inclusive church” that could share their resources and send some of their congregation and finances to rejuvenate the church faced with closure. It might mean sacrificial giving, the inconvenience of moving, but surely it would be worth it.
I’ve not met “Inclusive Churches” that are willing to make these sacrifices. Presumably they exist, but I’ve not come across them. HTB and St Helen’s are doing these things all the time. Their people also turn up enthusiastically in little village churches where they want to serve. The belief that Jesus sacrificed himself for you in order to save you from eternal wrath, does seem to inspire Christians to make sacrifices to reach others and save them from eternal wrath.
I totally agree with you. “Inclusive churches” that I am familiar with have shown no desire to send graft teams to struggling like-minded parishes, nor do they appear to give sacrificially. But there again they do not appear to hold to a belief in penal substitution.
i recall that an article about the latest HTB vicar, Archie Coates, was sent to a planting, and when presented with a poor East end parish, his wife ‘did not feel the call’ and they ended up in Brighton.
Or something like that. Truly embarrassing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OgnLbN2FdA
From 10:30.
I’m sure Archie is an admirable person and has done great work for Jesus, but somehow I cringe, particularly as I come from the same school, and also know other evangelical public school vicars who have gone to challenging parishes and thrived there for many many years.
So? Jonah didn’t much like his first posting but God used him. John Mark deserted Paul and Barnabas in Pamphylia but God used him too.
I’m just balancing, nobody is perfect. I am well aware of public school snobbery. I live in South London, and the mothers of my sons’ friends at their public school got concerned at the idea of visiting him and even going into Brixton. Nowadays my sons don’t go into Brixton as they can’t stand all the public school boys hanging out there. Maybe the same thing in Shoreditch? Now Dalston even my children advise me to never go there. The constant smile and happy face is also off putting. Been there, done that, got rictus in my jaw. Yes, it… Read more »
My concern is more with the health of the Liberal Catholic tradition that formed me. Its strength has been its inclusivity and moral seriousness as it offers an undemanding sacramental presence that lets different ecclesial sensibilities rub along together. Open to free enquiry, such parishes don’t expect people to invest spiritually to the same degree as the more full-fat traditions. But in wintry times this strength has also become its weakness: education rather than formation (see our dismal record in handing on the faith), and vulnerability to the moral temper of the day. Other than a handful of churches in… Read more »
Maybe. But what does ‘this is my blood which was given for you’ mean in the realm of sacramental realism?
The full blessing of Christ’s presence.
Could promoting “mysteries” to people who want certainty also be a problem? Doesn’t Acts 1 vs 4 talk of certainty? There is certainly much that we will not know nor understand this side of eternity but the gospel is not a mystery.
1 Corinthians 4:1 speaks of ‘mysteries’, not in the way it is now understood, but of truths long hidden now revealed in Christ. In Anglican and RC thinking it used in the context of the ‘Paschal Mystery’: Christ’s death and resurrection, particularly as sacramentally present in the Eucharist.
Equally problematic is promoting certainty where it is not in fact to be had. It requires dishonesty.
When I read your post back I felt the sense of loss. I recently returned to my childhood church and felt something similar as I did not think it had a future. But in comparison my experience of church planting has been so much fun, embracing a culture of welcome, hospitality and invitation. We had 20% more people turn up to our services in the first half of January alone, so other traditions should definitely try it.‘ I will build my church’ sounds like a promise to me and yes Gen Z are a big part of it. Do they… Read more »
Good to hear Adrian of your positive experience of planting. Similar experiences in my diocese with three evangelical churches involved in the diocesan church planting/grafting initiative. Not just Gen Z being reached.
I’m very much in sympathy with Robert Thompson’s thinking around Jesus’s understanding of the sabbath and how it might shape our approach to the development of doctrine. I continue to feel frustrated by the way he, along with many other people, uncritically conflates same sex couples with ‘LGBTQIA+ people’. The PLF are (were) a narrow and specific provision for homosexual couples seeking the Church’s blessing on their faithful, permanent and exclusive relationships. Of those who identify as ‘LGBTQIA+ people’ many are not homosexual, not with same sex partners, not seeking forms of relationship that are faithful, permanent and exclusive, not… Read more »
Um… how many people do you know personally who are not seeking relationships which are not faithful, permanent and exclusive? And do they also want to attend church? Just asking…..
I think you’re imagining a slippery slope problem that doesn’t exist at the cost of ignoring the homophobia that is by far the most significant obstacle to equal marriage in the CofE. Most people in your alleged “middle ground” wouldn’t know Open Table if hit on the head by it; and if they happened across it are unlikely to draw the same negative conclusions you do.
Jane, I am sympathetic to your obvious desire to see the church affirm “forms of relationship that are faithful, permanent and exclusive“, but I am not sure that your ongoing arguments will achieve that. I agree that many non homosexual LGBTQIA+ people are not interested in Christian sexual ethics, But it must also be said that there are many cis-gendered straight people who are not seeking faithful, permanent and exclusive relationships, or sympathetic to the church’s teaching either. And there are transgendered people of faith who are actively seeking faithful, permanent and exclusive relationship, although the sex and gender dynamics… Read more »
There are legitimate questions about whether, say, polyamory is compatible with Christian ethics. I’m certainly aware of polycules that have been stable for as long as my own marriage, and to the view of an outsider exhibit many of the “goods” associated with marriage, but I’m also aware that this stability is a relative rarity, that polyamory can just be a fancy name for promiscuity. I’m not sure, however, that I’d be at all confident of telling a happy, stable polycule that their relationship is inherently sinful.
Jo
Throughout my post I was happy to use Jane’s wording of permanent faithful and exclusive as being the type of relationship the church should formally support.
I don’t know how helpful it’s is to discuss polyamory in an LLF context. But if one did so, again any moral judgement should be independent of whether the participants are gay or straight, cis or trans.
The most shockingly abusive case of polyamory that I am are of was entirely heterosexual.
I guessed Jane was targeting non-monogamy in her objections to Open Table, but I may be wrong.
Simon, I agree, and have always agreed, with your main point. I know many homosexual relationships that are models of integrity and chastity and many heterosexual ones that are sinful and abusive. But this is not, in my mind, just about blessing those individuals whose lifestyles we happen to approve. It’s also about the Church exercising its charism of discernment with regard to different world views which may precipitate or claim to validate individuals’ choices and behaviours. This is where vague and broad ideas about ‘inclusion’ and ‘welcome’ may start to fray at the edges if they are not also… Read more »
The Church Times has a piece by Angela Tilby on a proposal for a ‘Festival of God the Creator’, calling this ‘theology in the service of morality’ – in other words putting the ethical cart before the theological horse, to extend Jane Charman’s equine analogy. I too can’t ‘back every horse that has trotted out from the LGBTQIA+ stable’, seeing it as a case of liberalism’s ‘vulnerability to the moral temper of the day’ I cited earlier in this thread. But, as a liberal, my position remains open, but first let’s have some serious theological reflection.
Overwhelmingly, in terms of numbers of adherents and centuries of teaching, the Church has held that the blessed place for sexual intimacy is marriage – between one man and one woman, exclusively and permanently. You can revise/corrupt/develop (take your pick) this teaching in all sorts of ways. A. You can say that it’s no longer about one man and one woman, but can be one man and another man, or one woman and another woman. Or one man and two women. Or one woman and two men. Or more. B. You can say that it need no longer be exclusive.… Read more »
This is just a slipper slope argument. There is no logical progression from A to B or C. Nor indeed is there an automatic progression from the logical application of Galatians 3:18 to same-sex couples to accepting polyamory. As “the” Christian vision, part of the issue here is that there isn’t a single vision, there are competing visions. For much of Christian history marriage was a second best to holy virginity, and marriage didn’t generally involve the church in any case. The nuclear family based on a husband as head of household with a subordinate wife is a recent invention… Read more »
As to the Apostolic Hermeneutic – perhaps the most important argument in Acts 15 is that the strictures of the traditional law amount and have long amounted to an unbearable burden which God presumably cannot have intended to impose, and this seems to have become clear to Peter and to Paul because of associating with spiritually active non-Jews, who are good and faithful people who find that burden grievous. Two branches then: the demand is too much, and the people who have not lived by the demand are acceptable people. This does seem very much like both aspects of what… Read more »
A good look at the difference between the Eastern and Western views of the atonement, written at a popular level, is “Two Views of the Cross: Orthodoxy and the West” (2022) by Frederica Mathewes-Green. She is married to an Orthodox priest and both of them are former Episcopalians. She calls the Orthodox view the Ransomed, Redeemed, Delivered, Saved theory of the atonement, though she prefers calling it the Rescued, Redeemed, Delivered, Saved theory of the atonement. Under this theory, we are delivered from death, Satan is defeated, the captives in Hades are set free, and humans are released from the… Read more »
This is fascinating, thank you. This is a theological text, but there is some congruence with my own interest in the psychology of patriarchy. What happens when one sees God as a patriarchal figure with patriarchal desires. Within a patriarchal mindset one has to be seen to be strong, but to give away something for nothing can be seen as weakness. One must get something in return within a transactional relationship. For God to offer unlimited, unconditional forgiveness would be to show weakness and is unconsciously unacceptable. So the question is what does a patriarchal God get in return for… Read more »
I think you’re being a bit rough on the poor old patriarchs. God is presented in the most intensely patriarchal terms in Hosea but makes clear (ch. 14) that he does not require anything for the restitution of Israel but future loyalty and that he is very generous to the fatherless
Martin, thank you. I agree that the patriarchal God as presented in the Hebrew Scriptures is much more nuanced and variable in his behaviour. At times exacting payment for forgiveness and at other times being much more generous. I am much more concerned about how Christians in the present day interpret these Scriptures in a way which suggest that God wants suffering in return for forgiveness or salvation. I am concerned that theologies is of atonement, in which Jesus is seen to suffer for our benefit, can make we Christians careless about the suffering of others, because consciously or unconsciously… Read more »
Yes, in some of the literature i have been reading, it is as though some feminist writers start with their anti patriarchal position, and interpret the bible through those lenses. So any idea of penal substitution is patriarchal and therefore rejected. I find this to be poor theology, and a rather romanticised view of women. Although I regard myself as a great supporter of feminism in general. Naomichi Masaki touches on this in his article in https://online.fliphtml5.com/xwbrji/yvle/#p=1 Some commentators regard traditional views of atonement as being ‘divine child abuse’ which brings us back to Smyth and contemporary hot topics. Such… Read more »
Thank you. I think that overview is helpful. Someone above said that the other side of the coin to Love is Wrath. Personally, I’d say that the other side of the coin to Love is Sacrifice… the unchanging compassion of God, and the cost (in terms of self-giving) of Love. The Love of God is not just fuzzy and warm: it is sacrificial in terms of givenness and cost. At the heart of the Cross of Christ I see Love to the point of no turning back. Compassion for the needs of the world, for our weakness and vulnerability and… Read more »
Thanks. Very helpful. The things which I find difficult/reject are what I call the Mel Gibson approach to atonement, whereby every lash of Jesus’ back is because of my sin and it ought to be me receiving the lashes. Shades of Smyth here. I don’t find that view in the NT. I also reject anything which makes God appear petty or vindictive. On the other hand, I fully accept wrath when it is wrath for man’s follies and sins. Jesus’ weeps. As Nietzsche said, God has died, God has died out of pity for mankind. With Jesus, we have a… Read more »
If you want the clearest exposition of the basic emphasis of the HTB view of atonement, then I think the Alpha course is the best place to go. And they have a video for Why Did Jesus Die?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIHqYqIjKVw&pp=ygUfd2h5IGRpZCBqZXN1cyBoYXZlIHRvIGRpZSBhbHBoYQ%3D%3D
(It’ll certainly take less time that listening to Lloyd-Jones on Romans, although that is well worth the time!)
I prefer Lloyd-Jones. It is meat.
Compare the Lloyd-Jones view of sin, compared to the HTL view that sin is like eating chocolate biscuits.
I will check whether Alpha you reference has watered down the concepts.
Watched your link above. Yes, it is a bit wishy washy. I think it also implies a heresy, with the Kohle story, that Jesus dies instead of us, or as a replacement. I don’t see that in Lloyd-Jones at all. Indeed, I read Lloyd-jones as being quite nuanced in any explanation of ‘substitutionary’.. Not sure if HTB talk about wrath, whereas I see plenty of wrath in Jesus. so much wrath He ended in tears. Every parent, or anybody who loves another, surely knows about wrath. What is love if there is no wrath? Lloyd-Jones’ central message is that ‘what… Read more »
I think you may be infecting the ‘Mel Gibson approach’ with notions of penal substitution that it doesnt have. Yes, every lash on Our Lord’s back is because of my sin, but there is no implication that it ought to be me receiving the lashes. Rather it is that I should be called by human empathy and compunction into a greater sorrow for my sin, and a greater love of the afflicted. An emotional response is evoked. This is common to much older Catholic devotional material.
I use the phrase ‘Mel Gibson’ approach as an example of a distortion. I don’t see anything of penal substitution in it. It can be extended to an evil distortion. I think the Pope at the time was asked about the film, and his response was ‘it is what it is’ which was very diplomatic! Some other commentators said that the NT has relatively meagre commentary on the physical suffering of Jesus. It is understated. It isn’t just Roman or Anglo Catholic. I remember driving up from Houston to Dallas on a Good Friday, and turned on the radio to… Read more »
Been checking out current evangelical teachings on atonement. Came across a series of sermons from HTL
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFt_Rdyo5CU
Cringy bit at 26:45, when sin is eating too many chocolate biscuits.
A later video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HanG5RDgJpY
My impression is that it does not ignore the substitutionary view, but maybe emphasises the ‘dead to sin’ view. Nobody expects deep theological analysis in these talks.
A big thank- you to Dr Primrose.
This brings us right into Mother Julian of Norwich territory and why her manuscript was so dangerous for so many centuries .
I put forward the Lloyd Jones approach, not that I necessarily agree with it, but it is one which many hold, and I respect Lloyd Jones intellect and sincerity.
https://www.mljtrust.org/sermons/book-of-romans/propitiation/
What is surely indisputable is the centrality of the cross in Christianity, maybe second only to the resurrection. Both expressions of God’s love.
https://www.mljtrust.org/sermons/great-biblical-doctrines/the-necessity-of-the-atonement/
Talks about substitutionary penal atonement. He discusses arguments at 28:00
If I were to believe in any of this, I would see it more as a substitution for sinfulness, not a substitution for me personally.
MJL also maybe moves into an Alpha view, that the cross was much more than penal substitution.
https://www.mljtrust.org/sermons/great-biblical-doctrines/christ-the-victor/
Surely there is scope to respect and understand differing views? The respected views are much more nuanced, amongst the best of the thinkers, than the cliches represent. Even MLJ seems to respect Dodd..
A scholarly discussion may be found in
https://online.fliphtml5.com/xwbrji/yvle/#p=1
Peter Scaer’s article asserts that Abelard, Aulen and Anselm should be seen as complementary, not competing, themes. This is surely right, as a general principle.
I found this a helpful summary in a forthcoming book, ‘We communicate and witness to the cross most faithfully when [as others have said here] we allow the whole variety of images to speak. We are being faithful to the approach of the New Testament as we do. Aulen suggests that we might be best viewing some of these approaches as drama, not theory. They provide imagery, themes, and a plot, not a scientific explanation. We must be prepared to let go of the idea that there is only one right way to tell this story, and that this story requires… Read more »
Quite. Also, let us try to avoid caricatures.
Substitutionary penal atonement – divine punishment, child abuse, Smyth? But Jesus WAS God, as the best evangelicals quickly point out. God died for us.
I find Stott and Lloyd-Jones (who are more accessible) and theologians spend most of their writing demolishing misinterpretations.
This diversity of understanding is (from my own relatively recent experience) nowadays being taught even in conservative theological colleges. It’s a shame that a vociferous minority of conservatives seem unable to make the mental leap to allow a similar diversity of understanding in matters of human sexuality.
Is that partly because atonement (and therefore the Trinity) isn’t seen as a first order issue and so there can be legitimate differences? I don’t know the answer to that question, but it seems a little curious that Scripture doesn’t speak with a clear, unanimous and certain voice on the how the suffering and death of the Messiah wins the salvation of all humanity, but does on sexuality. To the variety of approaches to the atonement mentioned here can I add that of James Alison who uses the work of Rene Girard to offer a radical critique of all these… Read more »
Thank you, Tim. In the course of the LLF discussions, I have been puzzled by the insistence of some that the church’s treatment of sexual orientation and gender identity should be considered a ‘first order’ issue, or discussed as a question of ‘doctrine’. In theological colleges, courses on doctrine cover first order issues such as the nature of God (including the Trinity), the work of Christ (including the atonement and its different models), the meaning of the resurrection, etc. Matters to do with sexual orientation and gender identity are taught in courses on Christian ethics. It is possible for Christians… Read more »
Making sexuality a “first order issue” was simply a tactical decision, a theological way of saying “we’re digging our heels in on this one”. There is no coherent argument that makes accepting a diversity of views within the CofE impossible on this while possible on (deep breath) remarriage of divorcees, ordaining women, the effect of baptism, the number of sacraments, atonement theology, eucharistic reservation, the legitimacy of war,…
I don’t understand either. The cross and resurrection, which come under the label of atonement, is primary, everything else is secondary. Without atonement, there is no Christianity. Of course, there are different emphases on different aspects of atonement, but that atonement is central to the Christian message is surely agreed across the spectrum. When all those theological papers were shared recently on theological background to LLF or whatever, was atonement ever mentioned? atonement = at-one-with-God-ment, as I am sure y’all know. But I would guess it is less well known in the general population, who only hear about sex and… Read more »
Another really, really helpful book about the different ways of understanding the Atonement is ‘Recovering the Scandal of the Cross‘ by Joel Green and Mark Baker. It comes from an evangelical stable but rejects the hegemony of the PSA theory, introduces us to some of the others, and goes so far as to say that biblical faithfulness involves us doing what the early apostles did – discovering fresh models for the atonement that resonate with the society we live in. For me this was a hugely influential book which I’ve read through several times.
Concerning the hegemony of PSA, John Stott, and evangelicals of my day, seems to have had a much more open view than many may have assumed. I found this article useful (I thought I had posted the link yesterday, but cannot find it). https://sharedveracity.net/2025/08/15/did-god-kill-jesus-the-cross-of-christ-by-john-r-w-stott-a-review/ In other words, penal substitution is not at odds with either Christus Victor or moral influence motifs, but complement each other. Yet Stott suggests that penal substitution makes Christus Victor and moral influence possible. My own view is that differing views of the cross cannot be put into some logical order, and so long as scripturally… Read more »
Yes, Stott’s ‘The Cross of Christ’ is a very useful book – likely the most intelligent and thoughtful presentation of the penal substitution model (while taking the other models seriously too, he insists that PSA is central). The most moving chapter in the whole book is the one in which he reflects on God’s identification with us in our sufferings through Christ and his Cross. His quote of the poem ‘Jesus of the Scars’ by Edward Shillito (a poem I had never read before I read Stott’s book) is simply masterful. Here it is: “Jesus of the Scars” by Edward… Read more »
I too have read it cover to cover, and was not as impressed as you were. He approaches the subject with a predetermined theory and makes everything else fit. He seriously misrepresents Hastings Rashdall. I suspect he hadn’t read ‘the Idea of the Atonement’ carefully, but just a review of it by another evangelical. I always find there is a slightly pervish tone to a lot of his writing.
Pervish? Or Peevish?
SORRY! I did indeed mean ‘peevish’! QWERTY is such an unhelpful arrangement of letters.
Thanks! Yes, I have zero experience, but I’m not sure whether evangelical leaders would be the first people I would go out to have a long drink with!
When I was on the PCC at my local church, the best part was always going to the pub afterwards and getting to know each other. There was the vicar and the judge and the headmaster…..there’s a joke there somewhere.
‘He approaches the subject with a predetermined theory and makes everything else fit.’ Could be said of a lot of authors, I suspect. One thing I respected about John Stott (who I knew very slightly) was that he made a point to talk personally with living authors before he criticised them in print. He was concerned that he represent their views fairly. I once told him of a remark I’d read from J.I. Packer, whose criticism of ‘The Cross of Christ’ was that is said nothing about Limited Atonement (the Calvinist doctrine that Christ died only for the Elect and… Read more »
I would very much like to believe that he had a personal meeting with Dr Ratzinger. Did he?
In what sense have we been delivered from sin and death though? They certainly continue. I could understand that we are redeemed from afterlife punishment for our sins but that surely means that God, despite being offended – as surely he must be – by our sin accepts that atonement has been made and welcomes us to better things. But that is still delivery from what would have been God’s wrath
I am sure that question has been analysed and discussed in many places, but I do not have an immediate reference. Wasn’t it one of St Paul’s ‘No, never, no’ moments?
Being personally convicted of persecuting God directly, Paul appears to have been well qualified to talk about God’s wrath (and atoning love), more than most, and this is central to his theology/teaching. The best place to start is Romans in the original Greek, but failing that a good translation.
I have studied Romans quite a lot, and read commentaries, but have no Greek.
Neither do I! But my point was if you can read the original source of Paul’s teaching on atonement why not use it rather than rely on commentaries. There are good bible translations available. Paul’s teaching on atonement was not simply transactional, it was about the church replacing the temple and the whole system of atonement practiced in the temple at that time (which ended shortly afterwards in AD70). He would been somewhat baffled by Christian Zionism which is driving the peace talks taking shape in Palestine.
A balanced view can be found in Christus Victor by Aulen. He looks at the three models (Anselm, Abelard, Christus Victor) and prefers the Eastern one, but does not insist on this “East vs West” idea.
Not for the first time, the critics of conservative evangelicals on this thread mis represent English conservative evangelicals. We are entirely comfortable with the general sentiment and content of the Christus Victor view.
We teach substitutionary atonement because it is so obviously there in the bible.
Some people object to substitutionary atonement – that is the argument.
Quite. I think it is worse, critics of conservative evangelicals criticise stereotypes or caricatures of evangelical thought.
But on the other hand, obsession with matters of sexuality cast a veil over the presentation of ‘Christ crucified’.
[I am sounding like someone I am not, but so be it. I hardly ever even attend church nowadays.]
If you believe in substitutionary atonement then you will find it in the Bible. If you don’t believe in it, it is not obviously there at all. No one saw its obviousness in the first millennium of the church’s history. It is not obvious to me. Quite the opposite.
Without getting too hung up about trigger words, I think you will find the writers of the NT and both Western and Easter churches thought atonement was fundamental from the start, and indeed substitutionary. One can quibble about details. I have posted before the views of St. Athanasius, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Chrysostom , St. Cyril of Alexandria in my link to https://sharedveracity.net/2025/08/15/did-god-kill-jesus-the-cross-of-christ-by-john-r-w-stott-a-review/ and there are fuller quotes towards the end of https://www.reddit.com/r/OrthodoxChristianity/comments/1i6ssuf/is_penal_substitution_antitrinatarian/ As Nietzsche said: The most dangerous form of blindness is believing that your perspective is the only reality. I think you will find that the best of… Read more »
The first 1000 years are not called the dark ages for nothing! But isn’t the link between the Passover meal and the last supper not obvious?
I’m not sure what link you are wanting to make. Was the Passover lamb regarded as a substitute for the people? Did our Lord identify himself with the Passover lamb at the last supper?
You seem to have missed my point.
Nobody denies the general terms of Christus Victor and people should not be talking about the “Hegemony” of PSA. (An unfortunate acronym for gentlemen of a certain age).
Some people deny substitutionary atonement – evidently including yourself.
I wish you well
The only point I was addressing was your claim that substitutionary atonement is obvious in the New Testament. It isn’t.
Really ?
It is quite obviously there as a paradigm. You might want to say it is just a metaphor or a form of elaboration or is re interpreted by other parts of scripture.
You over state your position by claiming it is absent.
To be fair, he didn’t say it was absent, he said it was not obvious. Room for discourse. Getting away from the individual, what proportion of CoE clergy share Matthew’s views? What proportion of church goers? In the past, as ‘cultural Christians’, probably quite high. Obviously the views of non church goers, who may label themselves as Christian, often have very funny ideas about Christian beliefs. At-one-ment is an optional extra. Why is that? Is at-one-ment like an athletics steeplechase water jump barrier, some glide over it, some stop and climb and jump and get wet, some come up to… Read more »
So the distinction being made is between “Not obvious” and “absent”.
A general principle of a good analysis is that it does not rest on semantic pedantry.
I perceive a significant difference between “not obvious” and “absent”. The former is a preliminary point of view, and implies a question, perhaps a challenge. “Absent” is a final judgement, brooking no argument. If seeing an important difference between them is pedantry, I own up.
“Not obvious” can be a conclusion, not a preliminary view.
“Absent” can be a simple recognition of fact, not a judgement.
A general principle of discussion is that you don’t put words into the mouths of others.
Just say ‘sorry, my mistake’.
I have neither made a mistake nor put words in anybody’s mouth
Concern about death – what happens when we die – are fundamental to humanity. What do the extremes of the “evangelical/liberal” spectrum within the C of E teach their flock about what, if anything, changed 2026 years ago?
How does a priest from one of these extremes, sitting down to write a sermon for a funeral service, set about it? Are her concerns primarily pastoral rather than theological?
That was too good of a question to elicit any responses.
The vicar at my local church holds to Evangelical Universalism, so all will be well as the deceased loved one will eventually come to believe in Christ, and be with Him for eternity.
Pastoral (because love is primary) AND theological (because theology should be about what is true, so is also pastoral). I would be labelled as “extreme” liberal by some (although it just feels to me like common sense, a scientific background, a belief in objective truth and a rejection of superstition) so feel i should respond… I would say that – belief in resurrection is central to Christianity, but that we do not and cannot know how literal or metaphorically true it is, (i.e. whether it’s merely living on in what we leave behind or more than that) – the extent… Read more »