Customer Reviews

Recovering the Scandal of the Cross: Atonement in New Testament & Contemporary Contexts

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

The book offers a critique of the penal substitution model of atonement. Penal substitution is found through evangelical theology, and enjoys wide popularity today (see for example Christianity Today's "Call for Unity" of June 14th for a list of theologians and authors who consent to this view). The book begins with an examination of the various "models" or "ways of speaking about atonement" present in the New Testament. The authors argue that the New Testament writers did not present only one view of the atoning work of the cross, but instead presented a variety of metaphors and models that were rooted in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus and connected to the specific contexts of the writers.

The book then proceeds to survey some models of atonement from church history, looking at thinkers such as Irenaeus, Anselm, Charles Hodge and others. With respect to Hodge and penal substituion, the authors argue that Hodge's notion of justice is too deeply entrenched in a Western idea of justice, and can lead to a warped view of God. The book concludes with examples of people who are trying to re-articulate the saving significance of the cross today in their own specific contexts.

This book is an important book because it highlights the need for evangelical Christians to think seriously about how to contextualize the message of the atonement. If missionaries in Africa or Japan need to contextualize the gospel, why shouldn't Western Christians do the same? This book is a call for Christians in North America to re-engage their culture with a message of the cross that speaks clearly into their situation.

This book is also important because it offers a balanced, biblical critique of penal substitution. For too long evangelicalism has allowed penal substitution to remain the dominate model, without seriously looking at the implications and consequences of this model. This book opens up the question of atonement in evangelicalism to re-examination, while still trying to be faithful to the biblical text.

Finally, a note to those who might be scared off by all this theological language. Don't be! This book is dense, but also very readable and understandable and would be a valuable resource for anyone interested in recovering the scandal of the cross for their own contexts.

Also, for those of you who have read this book, more of Mark's writing can be found [on the internet].

This book gave me a glimpse of a bigger cross than the one I learned in church. As a pastor, I am embarrassed at how long I described the work of Jesus on the cross as merely Jesus taking the punishment I deserve. Jesus came to rescue the broken, not just pay an overdue bill.

My conversations with those that do not know Jesus are so much richer today because of my understanding of the multiple facets of the cross. No, I can no longer pencil it all out on a napkin, but people respond to Jesus b/c he meets them where they are at. Their story becomes his story.

The world needs to see Jesus, the Gospel, the cross through multiple facets - I like this Jesus!

What is scandalous about the cross of Jesus and why do Christians need to recover it? According to the authors, the cross is scandalous insofar as it turns all the categories of the world--failure and success, master and servant, sin and redemption--upside down. Not only are Jesus' disciples in the Gospel of Luke confounded by the apparent failure of his mission (i.e., dying on a cross rather than leading Israel as newly anointed Davidic king), but also the entire project of salvation involves God becoming human and DYING out of his love for humanity. Contemporary mainstream American Christianity, with its self-assured and monochromatic emphasis on individual salvation through God's redemptive violence, too often misses the subversive and countercultural dimensions of the scandalous cross. In this powerful examination of the models and meanings of the cross in Christian history and theology, Green and Baker provide an antidote to this monochromatic gospel by revealing the ambiguity of the cross and challenging the reader's preconceived notions about what the New Testament itself says about salvation in Christ.

For the earliest followers of Jesus, his death "on a Roman cross was an event that lacked within itself a self-evident, unambiguous interpretation" (11). In fact, according to the authors, while the earliest Christians affirmed the centrality of Christ's death on the cross to their salvation, they didn't seem to worry too much about how it had its saving effect. The New Testament itself uses a wealth of different metaphors to describe the salvation obtained through the cross--justification, redemption, reconciliation, sacrifice, triumph--and because these different terms with their subtle shades of meaning get elided in the monochrome of penal substitution theology, the authors spend two full chapters examining these metaphors and teasing out their possible nuances in the context of early Christianity.

The diversity of meanings ascribed to the cross isn't limited to the discourses of Christian scripture, either. In the fifth chapter, the authors outline and critique several historical interpretations of the cross, including the Christus Victor model of Irenaeus and Gregory Nyssa, the Satisfaction model of Anselm of Canterbury, the Moral Influence model of Peter Abelard, and the contemporary model of penal substitution. (This chapter alone is with the price of the book.) In chapters six, seven, and eight, the authors examine the significance of the cross in other, non-Western cultures, revealing the diversity within contemporary global Christianity and using these cross-cultural perspectives to illuminate blind spots in American penal atonement theology.

The authors' efforts in this book are not mere intellectual exercises, either. As the authors repeatedly point out, the cross of Christ grounds the gospels in this world as much as in the next, because it was abusive political power and the desire to protect privilege that lead the Jewish and Roman authorities to execute an innocent man. The ambiguous, scandalous cross challenges all of our received notions about the status quo, and addresses contemporary social issues like racism, social justice, extremes of wealth and poverty, environmental degradation, and our very relationship to the rest of the world. The penal substitution atonement, with its overemphasis on the individual and her sinfulness, omits any critique of our cultural norms and institutions as unnecessary to Christian discipleship. "Given the diversity of witness to the saving significance of the cross in the New Testament, should we not look with caution, even dismay, when we see the atonement articulated in terms of one model only, and especially when that model coheres so fully with the emphasis on autonomous individualism characteristic of so much of the modern middle class in the West" (213). The authors provide ample reason for us to view the contemporary Christian theological scene with dismay, but they also afford the reader many opportunities to look at the Good New anew. And that is definitely good news.

This book could have been a really good book. There are genuine philosophical and theological problems to a "substitutionary only" approach to the atonement. Unfortunately, these authors gave the same pat 19th century liberal gospel approach. I was dissatisfied. I wanted to see hair fly and punches connect.

The main bad guys are Anselm and Charles Hodge. Even their critiques of Hodge, and I have problems with Hodge, were pathetic. They could have really nailed him. And they thought that answering Hodge answered all of the Reformed objections. It didn't.

I do not think they dealt as fairly with St Anselm as he could have. David Bentley Hart (*Beauty of the Infinite*) has shown how St Anselm and St Athanasius do not fundamentally disagree. Another problem I had is that biblical students need to see that the Bible incorporates all 3 models of the atonement (Mark 10 = substitutionary; Colossians 2:15 = Christus Victor; Peter 2:21 = exemplary).

Lacking in Power? The early church, particularly in its Eastern manifestation, set forth a powerful view of the atonement where Christ triumphed over the powers. This is missing from this book. Skip it. Read Rene Girard for an interesting take on the substitutionary atonement.

Here are a few quotes from Green & Baker that will give you their viewpoint. "divine anger or retributive justice are alien concepts." "Our sinful acts do not invite God's wrath but prove that God's wrath is already active."
Baker believes that God's wrath is only God letting us go our own way and that retribution is "alien" to the character of God. According to Baker, God's wrath is passive and not active. However, when God caused the flood, instigated the plagues and actively revealed the sin of Achan, He was not passive. Scores of examples could be given of God's active (not passive) wrath. These judgments of wrath were not simply results of sin, but active punishment for sin.
Baker says that "Paul's conception of `sin' is not one that accords particular emphasis to individual sinful acts each of which, it might be thought attracts divine punishment."
Is this true? I think not. A quick glance at Colossians 3:5-6 will refute this statement: Therefore consider the members of your earthly body as dead to immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed, which amounts to idolatry. For it is because of these things that the wrath of God will come upon the sons of disobedience. Paul listed five or six particular individual sinful acts that attract divine punishment.
While the Bible teaches that God's wrath can be both passive and active, Baker limits God's wrath to only being passive. "To put it pointedly, here Paul has nothing to do with an emotion-laden God who strikes out in frustration or vengeance against we who are implicated in sin. Sinful activity is the result of God's letting us go our own way-and this "letting us go our own way" constitutes God's wrath. It is clear then, that for Baker, if God has wrath, it can only be in the form of a passive withdrawal. Lloyd-Jones, a half century ago, explained how liberals interpret wrath in the Bible. "If I put my finger in a fire I get pain."
An active wrath of God is not acceptable and "alien" to the Bible, according to Baker. I agree that sin does have consequences and, therefore, wrath can be passive. However, the passive wrath of God accounts for only part of His wrath, not the entirety of His wrath.
First of all, according to Romans 2:5, the wrath of God is not just bad consequences, but also future judgment. God is actually storing up judgment that will be revealed on the day of God's wrath.
Romans 2:5 But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God's wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed.
Second, in Romans 13:4, the term "avenger" is not passive but is actively assessing and administering punishment that is due because of one's own sin. When this term is used of government, it is the government's active role in punishing. You can see this in Romans 13:4.
Romans 13:4 But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.
Romans 13:4 would make no sense at all if the government would be the avenger simply by allowing law-breakers to ruin their lives as their punishment. If the government simply let a criminal feel the pain of his bad choices, that would not be much of a deterrent. Government is an "avenger" actively pursuing the punishment of the criminal. This same term "avenger" is used of God in 1 Thessalonians 4:6.
1 Thessalonians 4:6 the Lord is the avenger in all these things, just as we also told you before and solemnly warned you.
Just like the active role of the government, God actively avenges. The warning is given because God is active not passive.
Third, in Romans 12:19 we are not to take revenge since God will take care of matters. The idea is that we will not actively punish others because God will actively punish others.
Romans 12:19 Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, "VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY," says the Lord.
This book misses the mark.

Baker and Greene do an excellent job exploring the depth and implications of the various atonement theologies that exist, while providing a hopeful way forward.

Recovering the Scandal of the Cross dives into dangerous ground theologically. The task of interpreting culture and communicating within a culture is incredibly difficult. So much of the biblical teaching of God is rooted in God communicating to a specific group of people and a certain culture and a certain language a truth universal of himself. Yet God chose this method of communicating himself to the world.

Green and Baker begin attempting to lay a groundwork of historical voices of the atonement from Anselm and Irenaeus. He later introduces ideas from Charles Hodge. Although others are mentioned in brief, this lays a paltry view of the historic dilema and sets up a framework from which they can freely abandon orthodox views of the atonement rooted in their discourse of tradition.

I found the summary of communicating the Gospel to Asians quite insightful as a whole although beginning to step onto theologically slippery ground. Beyond this Baker and Green begin to traverse down a slippery slope towards heresy. Rather than embraced, Baker and Green should be corrected and an orthodox view of God's gracious atoning sacrifice told and told again. It is a difficult undertaking and requires the hearer to enter into the economy of God and embrace the joys of knowing Him and His benefits.

Controversial, provocative, heretical. This book, while pretending to be evangelical, denies the very heart of the atonement.

I have received a couple of comments suggesting I defend what I have written above. Here are couple of specific concerns:

Green and Baker write, "The Scriptures as a whole provide no ground for a portrait of an angry God needing to be appeased in atoning sacrifice" [I wonder have they seriously and prayerfully read the Old Testament? Have they truly studied the book of Hebrews?]... They add that the penal substitutionary [the heart of the Biblical concept of atonement and the only ground of our justification] view of the atonement is cultural rather than Biblical [Of course, the words 'penal' and 'substitution' are not in the Old or New Testament Scriptures but neither is the word 'Trinity'... Is that also a cultural concept?]

Later they write, "Sin...can never be understood as something private or individualistic..." [Who then is accountable for my sin? Or is my sin not my sin? And when I stand at the judgment seat who will answer for me?]

The authors also argue that Jesus' death was not planned and ordained of God. They suggest rather that Jesus made a good guess when he spoke of his impending death...after all, what else could he expect in the cultural climate in which he was living? Incredible assertion.

This book is praised as a "fresh look at the cross of Jesus". I am not sure that its 'freshness' is a praiseworthy quality. I was deeply disappointed by this book. Green and Baker have strayed far from the Evangelical tradition that I hold dear. "As I besought thee...that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine...from which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling desiring to be teachers of the law understanding neither what they say nor whereof they affirm." (1 Timothy 1)

Hope this helps.

Hoping for a thorough and thoughtful approach to communicate atonement in a relevant way, I was highly disappointed in this book. After a promising first chapter, it became evident that this was a typical publish or perish effort. Aside from the biblical issues raised by others, frankly, I found this book to be poorly written, presented and articulated. Why is it such a struggle to present the material in a creative and engaging manner that allows truth to become evident? It seems like they tackled the subject but missed the point. Take a pass on this one.