May 21, 2009
The Christian doctrine of substitutionary atonement is often explained by an analogy to the courtroom: sinners stand before a judge (God) and are properly adjudicated guilty and deserve punishment, but that fine can in turn be paid by someone else (Christ). I imagine most of us have heard this analogy. (If you haven’t, or if you want to delve into it more deeply, you might enjoy this article by J.I. Packer, “The Logic of Penal Substitution.”) In any event, I think I’m representing this view fairly, and I’m sure my commenters will correct me if not.
If so, then I have to say that from the perspective of a lawyer, the analogy makes absolutely no sense. The law can be thought of as roughly dividing into two spheres, civil and criminal. Civil law focuses on recompensing the victim; if I steal $100 from you, you sue me for the $100 in order to be rendered whole. That kind of debt can be paid by someone else, but only because civil contract law is wholly unconcerned with the rightness or wrongness of the actor. To put it another way: our civil law setup is such that we neither encourage nor discourage people from breaking contracts; we just require that if you do break a contract, you (or someone else) has to render the contractee whole. Even if you break a contract maliciously, civil law doesn’t really care and doesn’t impose any kind of penalty on you to stop you from breaking contracts again in the future. It isn’t “justice” in the colloquial sense of the word (and in the sense that Christians are invoking the concept when they draw the penal analogy).
Criminal law, on the other hand, has an entirely different focus. It is concerned with the goodness or rightness of the actor, and it is wholly unconcerned with recompensing the victim; that’s usually what we think of with the word “justice.” Thus, criminal convictions impose a public penalty in order to punish the wrongdoer and deter him and others from committing the same offense against society in the future.
It would make no sense in the criminal scheme to allow someone else to serve out a convicted criminal’s sentence (or pay his fine, or whatever). The point isn’t to get the money; it’s to impose a hardship on someone who’s a danger to society and deter others from following in his shoes. So that’s why the penal substitution analogy doesn’t work; if a penalty can be paid by someone else and you can go scot free, it isn’t “justice” — at least, not in the way we humans understand it.
This is so readily apparent to anyone (even nonlawyers) who think about it that it surprises me that the analogy and argument continue to be so popular (e.g. Todd Friel and the Way of the Master crowd).
April 19, 2009
If it combines Pastor Rick Warren and “Three’s Company,” you know Fred Clark must be behind it.
Notwithstanding the terrific humor value, I think Clark is dead on here. Just as with his inaugural invocation (to say nothing of the recent controversy over Prop 8), Warren is trying to pretend as though his theology and politics are much more mainstream than they really are.
The (predictable) result seems to be that he’s losing his natural allies among the Way-of-the-Master crowd without gaining any support from liberal evangelicals like Fred Clark (let alone atheists like me).
April 15, 2009
Two serious questions. Take a listen to this Wretched Radio (former Way of the Master) segment, which is Todd Friel’s take on expository preaching on Good Friday.
1) Is there anything Todd Friel gets wrong about Christianity in this segment?; and
2) Can you understand why this comes off as, well, a little nuts to those of us who aren’t believers?
If the answer to (1) is “yes,” then I have some follow-up questions.
April 14, 2009
After giving Hitch a bit of a hard time about his debate with William Lane Craig, it’s time to pat him on the back for demolishing Way of the Master alum Todd Friel:
I do view this as a bit of a service to the Christian community, or at least to the handful of folks who still think this is a good script.
HT: Pharyngula, of course.