As many know one of the topics that most interests me is theories of the Atonement and the actual biblical narrative (the various ways the work of Christ has been articulated compared to what is stated in the text of Scripture).
Evangelicalism has adhered strongly to the Penal Substitution Theory. From the seventeenth through the eighteenth century it almost reigned supreme among Protestant churches, and certainly among Reformed churches. But in the late nineteenth century and following the Theory was met with rather sharp criticism from within Reformed tradition.
John Campbell, the Scottish minister and Reformed theologian (sometimes regarded synonymous with nineteenth British theology) distinctly deemphasized the Theory in favor of a position more akin to Recapitulation. Theologians like Geoffrey Lampe outright criticized the Theory as offensive. From there we’ve seen the Theory wane and then, perhaps, for a time resurge with Calvinism.
But now it appears the Theory is declining at a rate that alarms some. The SBC has offered a resolution that the Theory is essential. Denny Weaver has urged Mennonite theology farther from a blood atonement. And there are movements with Calvinism to reform Reformed theology.
The debate rages while Reformed theology loses ground with younger generations. But why? Is it the doctrinal arguments? Or is it something else?
I believe it is the latter. I believe that the basic presuppositions upon which the Theory stands are not shared as commonly as before. Part of this is, I believe, a product of postmodernism moving into “post post-modernism”. With postmodernism we saw a renewed interest in the traditionalism that modernism had shrugged off. But this renewed interest was only a façade passing itself off as the real thing, much like T.S. Elliot’s hollow-men. Old traditions were reclaimed, reinvented, and reimagined. In the context of Penal Substitution Theory, history was recreated so that the Early Church was like the evangelical church. With the decline of postmodernism, however, I think that there is more of a dissatisfaction as more Christians are sensing something wrong with tradition. Increasingly the hollow-men are being seen for what they are because those presuppositions which form the straw are missing.
My answer for its decline is that the Theory itself was a product of the worldview contemporary to the Reformers. Protestant Christianity found its identity in the Reformation just as much as in Scripture and held onto aspects of the antiquated sixteenth century worldview long beyond its usefulness by consistently reforming and reinventing its position. But as the falcon’s path stretched well beyond the control of the falconer (to borrow from Yates), Christians began to sense a problem as the ideologies and presuppositions at the base of their religious belief contrasted with the way that they understood the world itself.
Simply – the younger Christian generation identifies more with the fiction of C.S. Lewis and Ted Dekker (anti-Penal Substitution Theory) than it does with John Bunyan.
Evangelicalism has adhered strongly to the Penal Substitution Theory. From the seventeenth through the eighteenth century it almost reigned supreme among Protestant churches, and certainly among Reformed churches. But in the late nineteenth century and following the Theory was met with rather sharp criticism from within Reformed tradition.
John Campbell, the Scottish minister and Reformed theologian (sometimes regarded synonymous with nineteenth British theology) distinctly deemphasized the Theory in favor of a position more akin to Recapitulation. Theologians like Geoffrey Lampe outright criticized the Theory as offensive. From there we’ve seen the Theory wane and then, perhaps, for a time resurge with Calvinism.
But now it appears the Theory is declining at a rate that alarms some. The SBC has offered a resolution that the Theory is essential. Denny Weaver has urged Mennonite theology farther from a blood atonement. And there are movements with Calvinism to reform Reformed theology.
The debate rages while Reformed theology loses ground with younger generations. But why? Is it the doctrinal arguments? Or is it something else?
I believe it is the latter. I believe that the basic presuppositions upon which the Theory stands are not shared as commonly as before. Part of this is, I believe, a product of postmodernism moving into “post post-modernism”. With postmodernism we saw a renewed interest in the traditionalism that modernism had shrugged off. But this renewed interest was only a façade passing itself off as the real thing, much like T.S. Elliot’s hollow-men. Old traditions were reclaimed, reinvented, and reimagined. In the context of Penal Substitution Theory, history was recreated so that the Early Church was like the evangelical church. With the decline of postmodernism, however, I think that there is more of a dissatisfaction as more Christians are sensing something wrong with tradition. Increasingly the hollow-men are being seen for what they are because those presuppositions which form the straw are missing.
My answer for its decline is that the Theory itself was a product of the worldview contemporary to the Reformers. Protestant Christianity found its identity in the Reformation just as much as in Scripture and held onto aspects of the antiquated sixteenth century worldview long beyond its usefulness by consistently reforming and reinventing its position. But as the falcon’s path stretched well beyond the control of the falconer (to borrow from Yates), Christians began to sense a problem as the ideologies and presuppositions at the base of their religious belief contrasted with the way that they understood the world itself.
Simply – the younger Christian generation identifies more with the fiction of C.S. Lewis and Ted Dekker (anti-Penal Substitution Theory) than it does with John Bunyan.
).