Seven More Points About The Shack

cmp

this thread has driven me back to being disgusted

I think this is where I tell you “I told you so”

Keep up the good fight

David

Hey CMP,

I serve in a small church geared toward the urban poor as well as the homeless. I had an interest in teaching the people who come to our church , and especially the leaders, a few week teaching on basic christian doctrine. I already checked out your material under ‘store’. I was wondering if you had any other recommendations on either workbooks or books that you would recommend that goes over the essentials of the faith as well as the unorthodox views throughout history that I could teach? Either I go with somekind of workbook or I will have to get on mircosoft word and make my own packet. Thanks.

EricW. Once again, instead of engaging in dialogue you simply issue a pronouncement that is typically a conversation ender: First you cited Godwin’s law, now Godlose’s law. A citation of Godwin’s law is a conversation ender because it indicates that the other party has taken the discussion in an unprofitable direction, one where hysterics and irrationality take over at the expense of reasoned dialogue. In fact, you asserted that my comment was causing the discussion to devolved. The second citation functioned similarly (as a conversation ender). Neither comment addressed the topic of this thread, nor furthered conversation.

On the other hand, I interacted with your brief, but inaccurate comment, and showed how my illustration did in fact further the discussion. You have not responded to any of my arguments, leaving it prima facie the case that I have proved my comments correct and yours both wrong and unhelpful.

I would not have bothered replying except that others have found your comments unhelpful and not conducive to dialogue. We enjoy interacting with those of very different views (for example, the very lengthy discussions that have occurred with Mormons on this site). However, much preferred is dialogue that is responsive to and tries to elicit comments from others.

regards,
John

Dac, I am with you!

Please get off the Godwin’s law. This thread has deteriorated to talking about it, and hence Hitler. We all know what Eric meant in principle. Let’s just leave it at that as this has become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I have, in my own opinion, dealt with most of the major issues that people propose about Young’s book. No one is perfect, and, I still believe, as I have demonstated sufficiently to some, that he has not crossed any major line in the book. If you disagree, you may be right, but this really can’t, in its current progress, represent a good stewardship of time to rehash things over and over. It may be best for us to agree to disagree.

However, I really do appreciate your passion and concern for truth. In this I will continue to think about what you have said. I may be wrong about my evaluation.

CMP,

I agree, this has been very time consuming and agreeing to disagree may be the best we can do. Thanks for your gracious comments. If I ever believe it is ok for me to go and get the book and read it, I will do so. And if I find I have been wrong, I will admit it.

Brian, I would most certianly suggest The Theology Program, especially the first three courses. These are foundational to establishing the essential and non-essentials. We have many sessions devoted to this in Introduction to Theology.

Agreeing with Dac’s flip comment that he is disgusted does not make those of us who try to contribute intelligently and to pursue dialogue feel welcome, appreciated, understood and encouraged to contribute. In reviewing the thread, I see nothing to be disgusted about.

regards,
John

John, no one was jumping on you. It is just when things go round and round it gets nausiating. I contribute to this just as much as you. No need to get offended.

CMP, thanks for taking a shot at this. Your original articles are solid even if the discussion became unprofitable.

As always, I appreciate your balance and cool-headed analysis. That’s why P&P is my favorite blog.

Personally, I rather like a good workout in Logic, or aloof intellectuality, now and then. See my clumsy attempts to respond somewhat in kind. As my own self-parody, of course.

Thanks for your reply Michael, I typically find you to be reflective and helpful. No offense was taken, my job has thickened my skin over the years. However, also due to my job I am sensitive to how others may be discouraged by non-engagement and non-responsiveness. Have a good night, I’m off to read more about public purchasing and government procurement, which I have been doing all day, interspersed with coffee and replies on your blogs.

regards,
John

Dr. G.
What? Depreciating yourself for the owner of the blog? Interesting.

Before I leave the office today, I would like to point out that Young believes in Universal Reconciliation, that his editors took about a year to expunge much of that from the text (among other things they worked on), though evidences of it still remain. In addition, Young has disapproved of the penal substitution theory of atonement, though admittedly that is not really an upfront issue in his book. In reviewing this thread, I note that no one has successfully demonstrated that his book does not contain unorthodox theology. The issue seems to have moved toward how much bad is too much bad. However, that ignores the type / genre of literature that Young used (which I raised). In addition, I don’t see that anyone has successfuly responded to Cheryl’s concerns except for the “if you are concerned be careful, otherwise read with discernment”. I think that Cheryl’s critique of that approach was accurate and valid. Consequently, I think that this thread raises important issues of Christ and literature and discernment that bear further discussion (i.e., a continuation of this thread), and which should not be settled (at least at this early stage) by agreeing to disagree. The discussion of literature is important, given that the evangelical and fundamentalist subcultures are routinely criticized for putting out schlock literature.

regards,
John

John C. T.,

I have read that Young once believed in Universal Reconciliation but says he no longer does. But I have also read that his editor’s did do a lot to remove it from the book.

I’m an academic, but not a Church History taxonomist. Or a “letter-of-the -law” man either.

So: “Universal Reconciliation”? Just looked it up; it would seem to be a gateway drug to … Liberalism. Is it therefore being vilified here? For that reason?

Dr. G,

Universal redemption is rejected by historic Christianity being that the Scriptures are clear and the history of the church has spoken in unisom about it. Matt 7:14-15, among others, make it very clear.

If Young promoted universal redemption in this book, I would most certianly not have given it a pass in the way I did.

Please get off the Godwin’s law. This thread has deteriorated to talking about it, and hence Hitler. We all know what Eric meant in principle. Let’s just leave it at that as this has become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

🙂

We enjoy interacting with those of very different views (for example, the very lengthy discussions that have occurred with Mormons on this site). However, much preferred is dialogue that is responsive to and tries to elicit comments from others.

I proffered a comment that has so far not received a response as far as I can tell, i.e.:

35. EricW on 20 Apr 2009 at 1:03 pm #

IIRC, in The Shack God’s ultimate purpose seems to be to save and redeem humanity, every last son and daughter of Adam, if possible (it’s been awhile since I’ve read it). To save them from sin and the effects of sin, including the effects that sin had on them with respect to situations, upbringings, experiences, etc., that caused them to sin in the first place.

Is that unorthodox?

As I said, I haven’t read the book in some time, but I think readers come away from The Shack mostly with the ideas that:

1. God may not be the way one has been taught that He is, or the way one has thought He was.

2. God’s love for people, and His desire to save and redeem His fallen creation is far, far, far greater than we can imagine.

3. Even the worst possible human situation or circumstance, or even the worst possible person, is potentially not beyond God’s power to love and redeem.

(They also may come away with the idea that Young stole God the Father from the Oracle in The Matrix, but no one’s perfect! As has been said here: eat the meat/fish, and spit out the bones.)

We spent some time in the [Eastern] Orthodox Church, and an often-intoned statement to/about God during the liturgy and elsewhere is that He loves mankind:

Οτι αγαθος και φιλανθρωπος Θεος υπαρχεις, και σοι την δοξαν αναπεμπομεν, τω Πατρι και τω Υιω και τω Αγιω Πνευματι, νυν και αει και εις τους αιωνας των αιωνων.

We Protestants say that “God is love,” and we quote John 3:16 a lot, but I wonder if the implications of this has really penetrated our hearts and our minds and transformed us? Perhaps Young focuses too much on this aspect of God to the neglect of some other aspects of His nature, but his doing so has apparently struck a resonant chord in many readers.

So from all these discussions, should I read it or not?

Nice Eric.

Laughed out loud here: “(They also may come away with the idea that Young stole God the Father from the Oracle in The Matrix”

Never thought of that, but you could be right!

Kara, I don’t know anymore…lol. I just plead the fifth.

Eric W,

You said, ” As has been said here: eat the meat/fish, and spit out the bones.”

I think you missed my point altogether–people can choke to death on the bones!!

CMP,
I read War and Peace when I was 13, and being the Dyslexic I am and the long effort to get through it and understand it, I swore off complicated books the rest of my life…LOL.

cheryl u:

I understood your point. However, others have used the phrase in a less fatal sense than you did, so though I borrowed the phrase from you, I was not necessarily making the same point you were making.

(I think the first time I heard the phrase as a fairly new Christian was from Ernie Gruen, pastor (then) of Full Faith Church of Love in Kansas City, Kansas, in the late 1970s.)

John C.T. —
“For example, one can readily observe that narrative books and movies, and the lack of correct teaching, has lead to the creation of a creed now dominant among teenagers that Christian Smith and Melinda Lundquist Denton have called dubbed Moralistic Therapeutic Deism (MTD). In their 2005 book “Soul Searching: The Religious and Spiritual Lives of American Teenagers” they reported on their study of religion and teenagers, which is the most comprehensive to date. Those two sociologists discovered that rather than transformative revelation from God, religion has instead become a utility for enhancing a teenager’s life.”

While I appreciate the comment, it does come off as a “get off my darn lawn” old man comment. If teenagers are being influenced in this way, it is because the dominant mode of preaching/teaching in the evangelical church is focused on Seven Habits of Highly Effective Sunday Christians.

Chris,

I think your last statement is a reach. There might be some churches like that, more than we would care for there to be actually, but we know there is always a certain amount of questioning among teenagers if anything the ‘establishment’ says is right.

On what, specifically do you base your conclusion, and how does that fit in with The Shack?

Dr. James B. DeYoung, Ph.D., Professor of New Testament Language and Literature at Western Seminary (Portland Campus), has reviewed The Shack and provided a supplement to his original review. Dr. DeYoung brings a unique perspective in his reviews due to the fact that he is personally acquainted with William Paul Young. His review can be read at: http://homepage.mac.com/johnfonville/.Public/Theology/Reviews%20of%20The%20Shack/Revisiting%20The%20Shack%20and%20Universal%20Reconciliation%20extended.pdf

Or you can google the names and the book title. His review has been posted at several sites.

DeYoung knew and interacted with Paul Young for over a dozen years.

It is interesting to note that Paul Young has never disclaimed or disavowed a belief in universal reconciliation, which is not the same as universalism. Paul is also quick and careful in interviews to disclaim “universalism”, and then the interview moves on to other topics. But given that universalism is not the same thing as universal reconciliation, he in effect gets a “free pass” on the topic. One interviewer did press him on the topic, which led to an interesting exchange.

However, I think the more important point about this particular work is the one that Cheryl has been making, because on Paul’s own websites he has specifcally stated that he wrote down his theological thoughts first, and then searched for a way to string them together and to communicate them. He chose to write a fictional book to express his thoughts. And because the fiction writing was secondary to the expression of his theological thoughts he expressly states that he intentionally gave no thought to the “rules” of proper fiction writing. He further states that he was surprised that his book took off, given that his approach was one of intentionally break the rules because I care more about my theological thoughts than about my fiction.

It is therefore clear that his writing was intentionally a vehicle to teach theology. Consequently it is appropriate and necessarily to critique his work as a theological work. His work is all the more potentially dangerous because he deals with emotionally moving themes and so gets past our usual mindful defenses against error, and because he presents only one side (his) without acknowledging or interacting with positions different from his. Furthermore, his work is in fact dangerous because there are identifiable theological errors.

There is an additional danger. He has now become a respected and liked author. Thus, even though his editors have carefully expunged universal reconciliation from the novel (and I agree with CMP, the traces left only potentially and ambiuously refer to universalism), he is now in a position to give his views on universal reconciliation a wider hearing. He has not done so yet, so one cannot know whether he has changed his views (unlikely, since he moved TO a position of universal reconciliation and it was his last expressed position on the issue), or is just keeping silent on the topic because it’s not that big a deal to him and not worth endangering book sales, or some other reason.

So, in addition to what Cheryl has expressed, these are the reasons that I believe that the Shack is important enough to make a big deal about, even though it is true that reading it won’t send you to hell.

regards,
John

John C. T. wrote:

It is interesting to note that Paul Young has never disclaimed or disavowed a belief in universal reconciliation, which is not the same as universalism.

What is the difference between “universal reconciliation” and “universalism”? Wikipedia (I know it’s not an authoritative source) lumps the two together and/or regards them as interchangeable:

from Universal Reconciliation:

“Universal reconciliation, also called universal salvation or sometimes simply universalism, is the Christian doctrine or belief that all will receive salvation due to the love and mercy of God shown through Jesus Christ who died for the sins of the whole world…. In the early Church, universalism was a flourishing theological doctrine[1]. Over time, as Christian theology experienced growth and expansion, it lost much of its popular acceptance. Today, most Christian denominations reject the doctrine of universal reconciliation.”

from Universalism:

“In Christianity, Universalism refers to the belief that all humans can be saved through Jesus Christ and eventually come to harmony in God’s kingdom. A related doctrine, apokatastasis, is the belief that all mortal beings will be reconciled to God, including Satan and his fallen angels. Universalism was a fairly commonly held view among theologians in early Christianity: In the first five or six centuries of Christianity, there were six known theological schools, of which four (Alexandria, Antioch, Cesarea, and Edessa or Nisibis) were Universalist, one (Ephesus) accepted conditional immortality, and one (Carthage or Rome) taught the endless punishment of the lost.[3] The two major theologians opposing it were Tertullian and Augustine.[citation needed]”

From another Website:

“Christian Universalism”, in its simple and proper theological sense, is the doctrine of universal reconciliation, universal salvation; or in other words, of the final holiness and happiness of all mankind, to be effected by the grace of God, through the ministry of his Son, Jesus Christ.

Or am I confused because you are distinguishing between “universalism” and “universal reconciliation” – but by “universalism” you mean non-Christian universalism?

I.e., whereas “Christian universalism” and “universal reconciliation” are the same thing, “universalism” and “Christian universalism” are not the same thing.

To be sure, the doctrine that 1) Christ will save everyone, some day, leading them to Him, is often dovetailed into the idea that 2) everyone’s religion is OK in itself; or even that their own religions will lead them eventually to Christ or God, in the end.

So that Christian universalism … often shades into Universalism; the belief that all gods are OK, or are the same in the end?

So they are a gateway to Liberalism?

No doubt, we should be careful about following false religions.

Mat. 7:14 ff., tells us that narrow is the gate (to the kingdom, apparently); and that there are many “false prophets.” But it does not however tell us, which prophets are the false ones.

Indeed, the Bible often warns that may will come in the name of “Christ,” crying “Lord, Lord” … and yet even these “Christians” will be false.

So …? Is it all that clear, who we should be following?

Not to digress (okay, I’m digressing!), but IIRC the same church that called universal reconciliation heresy (per the final sentence in DeYoung’s article: “In the sixth century the church called universal reconciliation heresy, and it has treated this belief as such ever since.”) also labeled as heretics those who do not believe that the bread and wine in the eucharist become the real body and blood of Jesus Christ, and asserts in the Creed that baptism effects the remission of sins, and that there is one, holy, catholic and apostolic church, affirming a hierarchical episcopal ecclesiology à la Ignatius and Cyprian, et al. Yet many Evangelicals who are willing to label universalists as heretics are themselves heretics in the eyes of the Church Fathers and the early Church. I am not defending universalism (in fact, it seems to me upon first reading that DeYoung has written a valid critique), but simply commenting that I find it interesting that Evangelicals would appeal to the Church Fathers and the early Church for its definitions of heresy when that same Church and those same Fathers would call Evangelicals heterodox, schismatic, heretical or even apostate.

Though to be sure, ecumenist elements of the Church are now somewhat universalist, in that they suggest that while only Christ and/or the Church saves people (“outside the Church there is no salvation”)… they might however, choose to save persons who are not Catholics.

Since folks are starting to look at Young’s theology more closely, I am going to repost this link. I posted it originally on the first thread about The Shack.

http://www.canadianchristianity.com/bc/bccn/0409/01shack.html

This concerns an interview with Young in which he apparently denied that Jesus died to pay for human sin on the cross. It also mentions that he brought up the possibility of “ultimate reconciliation”–the possibility that all people will be saved in the end.

I agree with your thoughts on this subject, John C.T. This man does have some pretty serious theological issues and they will likely come out in any further books that he writes. And you are right, he is a very popular author.

I also agree that since The Shack was written from the author’s perspective as a vehicle to teach his children about God, it has to be viewed as a theological book and critiqued as such even though he used the medium of fiction.

From cheryl u’s link:

Adams replied that Young was denying “penal substitutionary atonement” – that Jesus paid the penalty for human sins on the cross – which Adams stated was “the heart of the gospel.”

Young agreed that he did not fully accept the penal substitutionary view of the atonement.

In the interview, Young defended his position by stating that there is “a huge debate that’s going on in theology right now within the evangelical community” concerning the doctrine of the atonement.

IIRC, a friend (summa or magna cum laude grad from Dallas Theological Seminary) mentioned in a “church history” class he was teaching at church that the predominance of the doctrine of the substitutionary atonement was primarily traceable to Anselm of Canterbury, and that before that time, the concept of Christus Victor – i.e., Christ’s death and resurrection defeated Death – was the majority understanding and teaching/belief. Thus, to say as Adams seems to say in this article that “penal substitutionary atonement” (Calvin’s development of Anselm, I think) is “the heart of the gospel” may reflect a narrow view of the church’s historical understanding and teaching.

This is not to defend Young, but only to comment that the popular Evangelical view of Christ’s death may not be the only one that can claim to be “the heart of the gospel” and the church’s teaching.

You know…. I would like to ask a question…. all the way from the original post… section 4:

“We don’t get a free pass by simply saying it is fiction”

And why not dare I ask ?

1) Who has read The Great Divorce ? (if not, please don’t comment)
2) Do you therefore believe in some form of “intermediate pending state”, perhaps even called “purgatory” ?
3) If not, why not… after all that’s what the whole book seems to be about. That people can choose to “take the bus” and then make a choice to “be reconciled”.
4) If you don’t, do you therefore call C.S.Lewis a heretic ?

The point I’m trying to make is that one of the best Christian novelists we know and speak very highly off, wrote a fiction work once that is kinda sketchy to say the least. But all because in his introduction he mentioned is was a pure musing on what-ifs and not a theological essay, we let it go.

Another analogy.
What is our problem with the “Da Vinci Code” ? If on the first page Brown would have written that Everything in this book is pure speculation, not historically verified and a frame for a compelling detective story, would we have reacted the same way ? I think our fierce reaction on the Da Vinci Code was greatly due to the fact that it was presented as based in historical facts. Which is in turn what led some great scholars, Dr.Bock not in the least, to respond with writings to “debunk” the Da Vinci Code. If it were presented as purely fictional, it could have been about a bunch of Martians for all we cared.

Personally my conclusion has been that I think Young himself is trying to infer too much in his writings. And that’s where it becomes a problem. I think it is our duty to warn people about the contents and where it fringes on orthodox theology. Have discussions with people that claim that it changed their lives. Ask them why ? Engage with them from an educated perspective. Just like you would engage someone who now has an staunch belief in purgatory because they read “The Great Divorce”

For those that feel uncomfortable reading it, just say so. Answers like “I have heard too much criticism on it and am uncomfortable reading it” is perfectly acceptable. Find someone that has read it and point people that way. Taking quotes out of context is too easy and one can pretty much prove anything. I’m sure I could prove CMP to be an Arminian if I hunted this blog long enough 😉

Besides that, discussing all kinds of laws, discoursing on the purpose and nature of God’s punishment or not, etc… all very interesting debate and undoubtedly stimulating. However, I’m afraid it provides little help though in how we as Christians should lovingly engage with those that have read the book and put too much importance on it. That’s why the response It is pure fiction is perfectly acceptable to me. I engage people and point out that this is a work of fiction, it should be treated as such, it has theological flaws and when Young is indicating that it was inspired, true, etc.. I have a problem with that. I treat it as fiction, not doctrine. When it goes beyond that… engage. But IMHO confrontation has never been a good way of engaging.

Just my two pennies worth 😉

In Him
Mick

And PS: Yes, I can’t wait until “Angels and Demons” hits the screens… it was a way better read than Da Vinci… I’m sure this final comment will put me on the heretic list with a lot people 😉

I just listened to an interview with Young. The link to it may be found at this site:

http://www.davidwesterfield.net/2009/03/shack-author-william-p-young-denies-penal-substitution-mp3/

It is quite long but I would highly recommend it for any one that is interested in knowing more about where Young is really coming from.

In it he makes it very clear that he really does not believe in the penal substitution of Jesus. That is, he doesn’t believe that Jesus was punished for yours and my sins on the cross. He has another take on the meaning of the cross.

He also leaves the door open for what he calls “ultimate reconciliation”–the possibility that even those that have not accepted Jesus before death will unltimately be saved because God might find a way to do it.

He does get a lot right in this interview, but those two issues are very major and he does get them wrong.

At the end of his interview, Al Mohler, who is, I believe, the President of the Southern Baptist Convention, gives his take on the book. He says it includes “undiluted heresy” and he also speaks of what he believes to be the dangers of a fiction book like this that does teach heretical positions.

Oh, and in the interview, when they were discussing the possibility of “ultimate reconciliation”, the interviewer spoke of hell as being an eternal punishment. Young then commented that fire is often a purifier that burns away what is wrong in a person, (not sure if that is exactly how he put it, but I think it expresses his idea). He seemed to imply that maybe that fire in hell might possibly be the way God could use to purify people after death so that they would ultimately be saved.

How did Jesus save us? “Defeating Death” sounds like a very general, old idea. That did not stand up to much scrutiny. It might not say much more than this: he came back from the dead; literally got up out of the grave, and walked and talked, physially. And therefore, it looks like we can too.

And so early Christians liked to be buried above grournd, expecting that their physical bodies would need easy access to the open sky in resurrection time.

However, as time went on – and few were resurrected in that way? Apologists began to come up with … other ideas; still more words.

“Penal subtitutionary attonement” (/”Jesus Died for Our Sins”?)sounds superificially, a bit more sophisticated. That Jesus dies on the cross, as punished (“penal”) fall guy, or martyr. To “attone for our sins.” Which seems to give Jesus a value … even if we don’t literally resurrect from the grave.

First, hopefully, 1) his attonement is good enough … that we don’t get killed; we get immortality out of it – Defeat Death – too. Still…? In a way, it seems to suggest that 2) even if we don’t see people rising out of their graves very much, these days, still the death of Jesus had some other kind of value. Namely, a) Jesus removed (“attoned for”)our sins. And then hopefully, the new promises were, b) later on, our new and improved soul may goe to, say, heaven. To be rewarded there, hopefully. With an afterlife. So that in in the end we get a delayed Defeat of Death; albeit after some delays, now.

And today, we are raised to “hope” for that. Though how hopeful should we be? Given the apparent collapse of the obvious, physical resurrections promised from the start?

Today, it seems, substitutionary attonement is current dogma in most churches. No one remembers any problems with the original promises.

Dr. G.:

Are you a resurrected reincarnation of the late (in)famous “Dr. G.” aka “Dr. Gene” aka Dr. euGene Scott? 🙂

I am resurrected from another context; to find a new life on your blog.

Universalism is the belief that all paths (i.e., universal) lead to salvation. That is, Bhuddists will be saved in their own way as well as Christians in their own way. All destinations are the same. Christ is not the only way.

Universal Reconcilication is the belief that your way (typically the Christian way) is the only way, but that God will save everyone through this way. So, Christianity is the only to salvation but God will save everyone through Christianity. So, for some that might mean belief in Christ before death, for others faith in a future hope (Abraham), for others belief in divine revelation (visions or general revelation for unreached peoples), and purification in hell or purgatory for those that made no decision before they died (or some such scheme).

In short, universalism is all saved through many different religious paths, but universal reconciliation is everyone saved via one religion.

regards,
John

I defend another kind of immortality than either of these

(Liberal) elements of the Church (RC; not “Royal Crown”), therefore, I would guess, believe in universal reconciliation.

That is to say, that although no one is saved except by the Church, still the Church, having been given full authority to speak for God (though Apostolic Succession and so forth), can now choose to delegate that authority. To say that, thanks to its standing as God’s chosen representative on earth, that, in their just and fair liberality, it now simply declares that … that even Protestants might be saved. Thanks to the Church so declaring it. (Hence, its “ecumenism”).

To be sure, note, Protestants are not saved on their own, exactly; but saved because – and only because – the Church, with its authority, said that they might be.

So that by this strategm. The old dogmatic statement – “there is no salavation outside the Church” – is still true (i.e., there is universal reconciliation; all are all saved by one and only one; in this case, one church). But at the same time, however, this one Church now in turn, uses that authority or salvific power, to extend a protective umbrella or aegis over others. Telling them they can save themselves in part, in their own way … thanks to the Church now … having lent its authority to them, to do that. Thanks to the Church having said that is OK.

Thus elements of the Church have signed off on Protestantism; authorizing it in the interest of post Vatican II liberalism. (The liberalism you hate, is the liberalism that keeps Catholics from killing you, as heretics).

To be sure, so far, the Church has not (very clearly) delegated such freedom and authority, to very many other religions, outside Protestantism and Orthodoxy.

Though to be sure, long ago Jesus himself said, that a mere good “Samaritan” – who was not even in the Judeo-Christian tradition at all; a mere heathen – might be a far better person, a better “neighbor,” than the most pious Priest or Rabbi. Or to extend this, an apparent agnostic might be a better person, that the most loudly professing and self important Christian.

Dr. G,

Regading comment # 87, sorry, but the positions you have stated here don’t sound very Christian to me.

‘Penal substitutionary atonement’ is not THE way to understand Christ’s crucifixion; it is A way. The creedal statement is that Christ was crucified, died and buried (Apostles or Nicene, there’s little to choose between them on this). There is no mention of the why, or how salvation was achieved, and it is the creeds which give us much of our measure of orthodoxy.
Yes, scripture speaks of Jesus as substitute, but this is not penal substitution. This idea has its origins in medieval feudalism. In fact, scripture has many different ‘models’ for soteriology:
Adoption
Atonement
Expiation/propitiation
Justification
Ransom
Reconciliation
Redemption
Representation
Revelation
Sacrifice
Salvation (Latin salus = health, welfare)
Second Adam
Victory over sin
(all cribbed from old lecture notes)
The point being that no ONE of them is sufficient to encompass all that God achieved through the cross. Now, it may be fair to criticise Young for having a bias towards one of them (the last on that list, most likely), but there is the small issue of specks and beams here. And to be fair to Young, he’s not atypical in his approach. Many leading theologians have a bias towards one or more models. This does not make them, or Young, unorthodox or a heretic; they simply express a different view, but one that falls within the broad scope of accepted Christian doctrine (whether you like it or not).
And yes, I have read it – and read it through the eyes and filters of a trained theologian. And yes there were bits I wasn’t entirely comfortable with, but acknowledge that they were still within the accepted bounds of orthodoxy. And yes, I do think he skates very close to universal salvation (but I don’t think he’s a pluralist. I don’t think he’d accept that all religions lead to God), but then so does Barth, one of the biggest influences in modern theology.

John O,

The point is not that Young is focusing on another way of understanding the cross. He is basically denying that Jesus was punished on the cross for our sins–period. Listen to the interview. That is what he says.

I’ve been told that in the Orthodox church, universal reconciliation is considered heresy when taught as a dogmatic certainty, but definitely tolerated as a hope. I hope that all will be saved, but I do not teach that all will be saved.

This seems right to me. How many times in scripture does God pronounce damnation, only to stay his hand by the prayers of the saints? Our hope and prayer should be no less than the salvation of all – however inconceivable that may be. But we must never fall into the trivialization of willful evil, sin, and death that seems to go hand and hand with universalism. Evil truly is a horror – we truly do have the capacity to debase and corrupt ourselves horrifically – to separate ourselves from the living God such that his loving righteous presence towards us becomes a fire of torment – Hell itself.

Cheryl,
He says he doesn’t accept penal substitution – but he does accept substitutionary atonement. They are quite different and they should not be confused. Penal substitution is largely a ‘product’ of Western (by which I mean the Western Roman Empire as opposed to Eastern Orthodoxy) thought, largely, but not exclusively, influenced by feudalism. One might argue that penal substitution is not Biblical. Substitutionary atonement most certainly is.

I listened to the first twenty two minutes of the Young tape; the relevant passage is actually 21 minutes in.

Young 1) is saying that he does not think that Jesus was punished for our sins, to save us that way. But 2) he notes that there is in Evangelical theology today, a huge controversy on this. And there are several theories about how Jesus saved us, or what the crucifixion meant. Young mentions the “Penal” theory; while Young 3) seems to favor the “Substitutionary” theory: Jesus “became sin for us.”

In rejecting “Penal” theory, does Young therefore 4) reject Jesus completely? Hardly. He 5) merely rejects one of a dozen theories, of exactly how Jesus saved us.

But strictly speaking, 6) yes, Young contradicts what many of you heard in church: he does not believe Jesus died for your sins, in a “penal” sense. But a “substitutionary” sense instead; he “became sin for us.”

To be sure, though, 7) substitution is interesting too. One might well wonder how God might decide it was good, to kill the best person on earth, as punishment. Why punish a good man? Or even let an innocent person take the rap for everyone else?

There are many things in churches that we heard, that might need later “refining.” Suppose we look at some other theories, of all this?

Let’s not take whatever we heard in our separate churches as children, as the last word from God; let’s move on with more “mature” thinking, as Paul suggested. And to theology. Which considers many possiblities; not just one or two.

Cheryl –

I think it might be time to take a step back off the horse. I don’t say that in a harsh or arrogant way, it’s just that you have made about 20 comments on this thread now, and I think all are understanding your points, though not all agree with everything you’ve stated. And, as CMP stated, it is hard to hear what you are saying if you haven’t taken time to read and consider the book. I suppose if you did read it, you would already come to it with a preconceived idea that it is full of trash. While it does not have perfect theology, from my perfect standpoint :), I still think he accomplished his point.

Still, in all, you could post another 20 comments and I am not sure you are helping the conversation move forward. It’s ok to relax and take a step back.