N. T. Wright and Penal Substitution

I like N. T. Wright - I really do.  I know that makes me suspect in the eyes of some but I have read the first two of his big fat books and they were immensely helpful, even though I am not on board with him in every say.

So, a couple of days ago I find some comments that he believes in penal substitution and I do the dance for joy, that he has spoken out on this important issue.  Now, as Adrian and others report he has clarified his comments in an article here.  And those clear blue waters just got muddier.

I won't go into all of the details and frankly I don't understand all of the hairs he is splitting.  But apparently he is not happy with the position of one Jeffrey John who he says caricatures the cross, but he also doesn't like the position of the authors of Pierced for our Transgressions, a modern defense of penal substitution.

While Adrian is perplexed, to say the least, Alastair.Adversaria defends Wright here.  The authors of Pierced for Our Transgressions have responded here (HT - Justin Taylor).   The Ugly Vicar expresses concern over Wright's position here.  Doug Wilson is quite puzzled by Wright and praises the authors of Pierced here.  Jim Hamilton asks some important questions here.  And D. A. Carson expresses his annoyance at some things Wright says about the atonement in a recent book.  To quote Carson:

Finally, a few merely annoying things. (1) Why is it that everyone else’s understanding of the atonement can be repeatedly dismissed as mere abstract theories of the atonement, while his own presentation escapes the rubric? Are not the (other) “theories of the atonement” grounded, in their writers’ minds, in what actually happened, in what God actually accomplished? And does not Wright’s own understanding of what God actually accomplished constitute another “theory of the atonement”? The shift in terminology is merely a way of dismissing the views of others and sanctifying his own. (2) More broadly, Wright has a penchant for replicating the Elijah syndrome: “And I, even I only, am left.” To offer but one of many examples: “The trouble with imagining the future world is that we’ve all been given the wrong impression” (114). Well, I suppose we should be grateful that we have now been given the Wright impression.

The only two cents I have to offer in this whole thing is to remember something I believe John Frame said, or it might have been Frame as quoted by Richard Pratt.  Frame said that truth does not equal precision, nor does precision equal truth.  Something can be vague and still true. 

I don't take this to mean that vagueness is to be preferred over precision, if something is spoken with precision then we err if we make it vague.  At the same time, something can be vague and still be true.

It seems to me that in some of this Wright is narrowing and narrowing his definitions to such a precise point and then claiming that they all err who don't see it this way.  Again, I like Wright and am not calling him a heretic, but I do think Carson has a point about the Elijah syndrome. 

I also don't mean to overly simplify things here - I understand there are nuances to the penal substitution issue and areas where precision is called for.  But in all of that, I fear an overzealous quest for precision may cause us to miss the glorious simplicity that Jesus, as our substitute paid the penalty for our sins, thus freeing us from the wrath of God.

Related Tags: Religion, Theology, Christian, Christianity, Doctrine, Penal Substitution, Atonement, N. T. Wright

Comments

[mark]

Another thing John Frame has written, which I wish Wright would read, is on the uselessness of critiquing others for being "abstract." Anti-abstractionism can have a concrete (!) meaning, but often it simply means almost nothing. I think there are times Wright has a clear point, but often it is just annoying.

[Kyle]

Wow. I never took Carson for a pun maker.

[Al]

In the article in question I think that Wright's attack on abstraction makes sense. The claim that evangelical doctrines of atonement are generally abstracted from the narrative of Scripture seems to me to be a well-founded one.

I also think that the 'Elijah syndrome' claim — as Joerl Garver comments on my blog — is quite rich coming as it does from Don Carson.

I don't think that Wright's article is really that hair-splitting in character. His opposition to Pierced for our Transgressions is focused on its neglect of the biblical narrative, the story of Israel and the gospels in particular. Whilst I partly understand the author's reasons for doing this (some of them are mentioned in their response), Wright has here put his finger on a very serious weakness in the way in which evangelicals go about developing their understanding of the cross. Conservative evangelicalism's failure to engage fully with the narrative of Scripture in its theologizing and its neglect of the gospels for the Pauline literature in its articulation of the Gospel is a problem of massive proportions and causes problems throughout the entirety of the evangelical theological system, the doctrine of atonement being just one such area.

[Mark Traphagen]

Carson may have a point, but it's a bit like the pot calling the kettle black, is it not?

Over-precisionism may be the great Reformed idol.

[cavman]

Part of the truth, held as the whole truth, is not the truth.
The atonement is like a diamond, it has many facets or aspects.
I have not read PFOT (yet)so I don't know how they approach defending penal substitutionary atonement. But... I can't see how one can read the Story and miss it. It is all over the place, in both Old and New Testaments.
It is the core of the atonement, without which we are lost in our sins. But evangelicals have certainly neglected other aspects of the atonement. Christus Victor is certainly found in Colossians. Peter utilizes Christ's suffering as an example to/for us (all the while affirming his substitution in bearing our sins).
Both sides of the argument fall into extremes, and untruth, when they do not affirm (or flatly deny) the other aspects of the atonement which are also present in Scripture.
The problem with emergent thinkers like McLaren, Chalke, etc. is not that they embrace Christus Victor, but that they deny the penal aspect of the substitutionary atonement (see the Day of Atonement, and IS 53, which is quoted in 1 Peter). It is better to have the core truth, and neglect the peripheral than extol the peripheral and abandon the core.

[graham]

I certainly think Wright has a penchant for the Elijah syndrome. I wish he wouldn't, because it makes me suspicious of what he goes on to say, even though I agree with him most of the time.

However, I think that Carson has misunderstood Wright on the first point. Isn't it a question of methodology? A 'theory' that seeks to be grounded in history and narrative is different to an abstraction based on a systematic synthesis of snippets of the narrative.

Or have I overly simplified that?

[William Hill]

What are the first two of his "big fat books"?

Thanks!

[Wonders for Oyarsa]

What are the first two of his "big fat books"?

The first is The New Testament and the People of God

The second is Jesus and the Victory of God

[Julana]

Ugley seems to be a place, not a description of the Vicar's face. :-)
I surfed over there to see his photo, and found he seems to live in a town called Ugley.