Randal Rauser's Blog, page 156

89. What did the cross achieve? Oliver Crisp on Atonement

Yo, don’t mess with me bruv. I’m Oliver.

In 1973 the great Reformed theologian J.I. Packer delivered a very influential Tyndale Lecture titled “What did the cross achieve? The logic of penal substitution.” In that address Packer eloquently summarized and defended a theory of atonement which has been so influential in the western church that many Christians have simply identified atonement with penal substitution.

But penal substitution also has a growing chorus of critics who challenge this account of atonement for a range of biblical, theological, philosophical, historical, and practical reasons. And what better time to enter into this debate than on the very Easter weekend that we commemorate and celebrate the extraordinary and elusive achievements of the cross.

In this episode of The Tentative Apologist Podcast I have invited back to the podcast my good friend Dr. Oliver Crisp for a discussion about atonement. Dr. Crisp is Professor of Systematic Theology at Fuller Theological Seminary and is the author, editor, or co-editor of many books in systematic and historical theology including  The Word Enfleshed: Exploring the Person and Work of Christ (Baker Academic, 2016) and the co-edited volume Locating Atonement: Explorations in Constructive Dogmatics (Zondervan, 2015).

In this conversation Oliver and I begin with a discussion of penal substitution and an exploration of the differences between doctrine, model, motif, and theory. From there we briefly survey some other models or theories of atonement before we consider Oliver’s proposed account.

Christians may not all agree on precisely what the cross achieved, or how it was achieved. But one thing we can agree on: the achievements of Christ on the cross are good news for a broken world.

Islam and Christianity in Dialogue

In two weeks (April 8th) Taylor Seminary in Edmonton will be hosting an evening of dialogue between Christian apologist Andy Bannister and Muslim Imam Sherif Ayoup. (And I’ll be moderating!)

In an age of increased fear, misunderstanding, and polarization,  dialogue is more important than ever, so I’m delighted to be participating in this event. The time for building walls is past. If we’re ever going to learn to live together, we need to start dismantling walls, and this evening of conversation is a great start.

You can register here.

 

The omniscient God as the jilted lover

In “God in the terrifying image of a jilted lover” I provided some reasons why readers of the Bible should not interpret descriptions of God’s tumultuous emotional life literally. The focus of my analysis in that article was to point out how this yields a picture of God as unpredictable, emotionally needy, and threatening.

In this follow-up I’m going to say a bit more about why we should not interpret those descriptions literally by focusing on one divine attribute: (essential) omniscience. According to the attribute of omniscience, God knows all true propositions and believes no false ones. (Omniscience includes substantially more than this — i.e. it also includes knowledge of ability and perhaps some degree of knowledge of acquaintance. But we can focus here on propositional knowledge.)

Let’s return to the passage under discussion in the previous article, Hosea 11, and focus in particular on the reflection on Israel’s unfaithfulness in verse 8:

“How can I give you up, Ephraim?

    How can I hand you over, Israel?

How can I treat you like Admah?

    How can I make you like Zeboyim?

My heart is changed within me;

    all my compassion is aroused.

These rhetorical questions powerfully convey the shock, confusion, indecision, and underlying anguish of a jilted lover. And that shock, confusion, indecision and anguish constitutes a substantial degree of the suffering of the individual.

But if God is essentially omniscient then he has known from eternity every action of Israel. Indeed, one could even say every action of Israel constitutes part of God’s meticulous providential decree (though how that cashes out differs between Calvinists and Arminians). Suffice it to say, God would experience none of the shock, confusion, or indecision that arises from the revelation of a betrayal. Nor would there be any of the resulting anguish which would be borne by that shock, confusion, and indecision.

Ed Buckner reviews Is the Atheist My Neighbor?

Ed Buckner, former president of American Atheists, has provided a very favorable review for Is the Atheist My Neighbor? at the No God Blog. You can read the review here.

God, Science, and the Universe: A Debate between Krauss, Meyer, and Lamoureaux

This debate live-streamed on March 19th and features Lawrence Krauss (atheist), Stephen Meyer (intelligent design theorist), and Denis Lamoureux (theistic evolutionist).

The Atheist and the Antitheist: The Lecture

Here is my 2016 FaithLife Lecture on the Atheist as Neighbor delivered at Concordia University in Edmonton, Canada. I previously posted the paper which is titled “The Atheist and the Antitheist: A Critical Analysis of the Rebellion Thesis.” But for those who prefer watching to reading (plus there is some Q&A following)…

God in the terrifying image of a jilted lover

Aristotle famously referred to deity as the unmoved mover. And countless Christian theologians have agreed with him as they have described God as impassible such that he is not acted upon by creation. As the Westminster Confession succinctly put it, God is “without body, parts, or passions.” What this means is that God does not undergo changes of emotional state based on the actions of created beings.

While theologians have widely believed God is impassible and thus not subject to changes of emotional state, the Bible frequently describes God precisely in these terms. And that brings me to the entry “Wounded Lover” in Philip Yancey’s devotional Discovering God: A Devotional Journey Through the Bible (Zondervan, 1993). In this devotional reflection, Yancey reflects on Hosea 11:1-11 which describes God reacting to Israel’s covenant unfaithfulness with a turbulent mixture of love, rage, and anguish. Yancey writes:

“The powerful image of a jilted lover explains why, in a chapter like Hosea 11, God’s emotions seem to vacillate so. He is preparing to obliterate Israel–wait, now he is weeping, holding out open arms–no, he is sternly pronouncing judgment again. Those shifting moods seem hopelessly irrational, except to anyone who has been jilted by a lover.

“Is there a more powerful human feeling than that of betrayal? Ask a high school girl whose boyfriend has just dumped her for a pretty cheerleader. Or tune your radio to a country-western station and listen to the lyrics of infidelity. Or check out the murders reported in the daily newspaper; an amazing proportion trace back to a fight with an estranged lover. Hosea, and God, demonstrate in living color exactly what it is like to love someone desperately, and get nothing in return. Not even God, with all his power, can force a human being to love him.” (84)

In this passage Yancey follows the popular Christian interpretation — whilst ignoring the theologian’s appeal to anthropopathism. Presumably Yancey believes this is an endearing picture, one that reflects just how much God loves us, how eminently personal he is, and how much he longs to be with us.

But here I must very much disagree with Yancey and his straightforward reading of this text. Imagine, for a moment, that Yancey is correct, that when human beings sin God responds with all the unpredictability of a jilted lover. One moment God is consumed by rage and hatred as he plans to cut us to pieces. The next minute he is in anguished despair, inconsolable as he is curled up in a divine fetal position. A moment later he is back longing for reconciliation as he regrets the thoughts of violent retaliation that flooded his mind only moments before.

Who could possibly think that this image of God is one to be taken literally? To do so would not be comforting, it would be terrifying. And that’s one very practical reason why the mainstream theological tradition has interpreted such vibrant passages of divine emotional turbulence as anthropopathic.

A Career in the Pulpit

Have you ever been in church on Sunday morning when one of the pastoral staff made the announcement that they were being called to another church? If so, you probably are well aware that the “call” of which they speak is not merely a call from a hiring committee. Rather, it is a call from God himself.

If you’re like me, you have noticed that more often than not, when God makes this call, it is to a more prestigious appointment, e.g. a larger, more successful congregation in a more desirable city or neighborhood. In other words, God appears to call pastors in a way that looks all but indistinguishable from secular career advancement, or what we used to call “moving up the career ladder”.

It isn’t long before some of us begin to ask: given that this looks like secular career advancement, how do we know that it isn’t merely secular career advancement? That’s a terribly important — and terribly awkward — question to be asking.

Note how people typically don’t ask the same questions of Christian medical doctors, teachers, lawyers, or car salesmen. If Smith is a lowly car salesman at Honest Al’s Used Car Lot, and he is suddenly offered a prestigious managerial position at Metro City Porsche, he doesn’t feel any need to sanctify the move by saying God called him to Porsche. The money’s better, the job security is better, the work conditions are better, and Smith gets to drive a new Cayenne home at the end of the day rather than his rusty Plymouth. Done!

Now consider Pastor Jones: after putting in several long years at Podunk Baptist, he is offered a prestigious head pastor position at Metro City Community Church. But while Smith is free simply to take the job at Metro City Porsche as a smart career move, Pastor Jones is obliged to baptize his decisions as a divine call. Why?

Is it really the case that God takes a special interest in the career decisions of pastors and missionaries which he doesn’t extend to other more “secular” denizens of the kingdom? How do those pastors and missionaries avoid merely baptizing self-interest as the call of God? And how are the rest of us to reconcile the call of the kingdom to our careers?

88. Euthanasia, Death, and the Good Life: A Conversation with Heidi Janz

Dr. Heidi Janz, ethicist and disability advocate

“Euthanasia.” The word derives from the Greek prefix “eu” or good, and “thanatos” or death. Hence, euthanasia promises a good death. But what is a good death? And what right do medical practitioners have to bring it about?

These questions press themselves upon us with increasing urgency as various jurisdictions consider the adoption of new legislation to permit active euthanasia, the intentional action of medical practitioners to bring about or aid the death of the patient.

For example, in February, 2015 the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that adults with medical conditions which are deemed grievous and irremediable should be granted access to physician-assisted suicide. The ruling will take effect on June 6th, 2016.

It seems to me that any discussion of euthanasia, of good death, should begin with a discussion of eubios, or good life. So what is a good life? What is a life worth living? And how can it inform our conception of the good death?

As we turn to address these issues on this episode of The Tentative Apologist Podcast, I am delighted to have as my guest Dr. Heidi Janz. Dr. Janz is visiting scholar with the John Dossetor Health Ethics Centre at the University of Alberta where she works on issues pertaining to ethics and disability. Her recent publications include a co-authored paper called “21st Century Eugenics?” in The Lancet and the co-authored essay “Individuals with Disabilities,” in the 2011 book Diversity and Justice in Canada published by Oxford University Press.

Dr. Janz brings a unique perspective to questions of bioethics, euthanasia, and the good life. Dr. Janz has a form of cerebral palsy that is classified as a “severe disability”. This lived experience grants her voice a unique moral authority and wisdom as she shares a challenging perspective from among those who are often shunted to the margins of society.

You can visit Dr. Janz online here and here. In addition, I recommend you watch the following story on Dr. Janz with the Canadian television program “100 Huntley Street”:

And now, without further ado, my interview with Dr. Heidi Janz:

Consumerism in its purest form

I remember the moment as if it were yesterday. My daughter was three years old at the time and we’d decided to while away a long winter afternoon by taking her to Toys ‘R’ Us. As the sliding door opened before us and she walked into the store, her eyes opened wide. Overcome with desire at the shelves stacked with toys, she turned to me and said:

“I want all the toys I don’t have.”

Notice her words. Nothing in particular had as yet caught her eye. Rather, in those first few euphoric moments, her desire had been reduced to its essence: the desire to acquire.

People often think of consumerism as the love of material goods. But in fact, in its purest essence, consumerism is the love of acquiring material goods.

Suffice it to say, the next time we had to while away a long winter afternoon, we went to the park.