Reflections on the God blog wars

The past week of back and forth debate between myself, Adrian Warnock, Peter Kirk, and assorted other newcomers and regulars to the Daily Duck has been lively, informative and revealing. Thank you to all who have participated, you are wekcome back whenever you want to pick my brain or any of the other resident unbelievrs and heretics. I've learned quite a few things which I'd like to share with my readers.

For one, you should never assume that your blog does not have much visibility. I've never considered the Daily Duck more than a minor amphibian in the blog ecosystem, yet that didn't stop Adrian Warnock, who is a major force in the God blog realm, from sighting me on his radar scope when I commented on a post of his. Note to self: read what you write before clicking "publish". Second note to self: add a page view counter to the blog. We might actually have enough traffic to sell ad space for poker lessons.

Secondly, I learned how contentious the subject of atonement doctrine is among Christians. Especially among the non Catholic variety, who don't have the luxury of relying on whatever the Pope says. Though my post was the instigating spark that set off Adrian's weeklong series of blog entries debating the question of whether God killed Jesus, once the debate got rolling it was purely an in-house debate. Peter Kirk valiantly tried to steer the discussion toward me on a few occasions, but the unbeliever in their midst was summarily ignored. I feel cheated! What's the use in lobbing rhetorical grenades if you can't draw even a little hostile fire? I'd have to give Adrian's blog a "D-" in salvation preparedness. There I was, in their midst for a whole week, and nobody tried to save me.

Growing up Catholic, I was really never presented with all the competing theories of atonement, nor even told that there were competing theories. It was interesting to learn, via Peter Kirk, that there are actually four. Now forgive me if I am impertinent, but any doctrine that spins up that many competing explanations has to have some serious flaws to begin with. It obviously is at odds with our basic human moral instincts, and the extent to which the debaters on Adrians's blog, those who take Adrian's side at least, are taking great pains to butress their position with both Biblical references and human reason seems to point out what a sore point within the evangelical community this question is.

I discovered another Christian blogger picking up on Adrian's post, one Mark Lauterbach:

Over at Adrian Warnick's BLOG there has been a fascinating discussion of the phrase, "The Father killed Jesus on the cross." You may find it interesting to look it over. There are three things apparent from the discussion:

1. There is a true skepticism re: the matter of sacrifice and atonement in our culture. The discussion began with a critique of the idea as preached by CJ Mahaney at New Attitude. That critique was offered by a skeptic. Tim Keller has noted that this is one of the most frequent objections he hears to the Christian doctrine of sacrifice -- "why doesn't God just forgive? It all seems so primitive." That is one side to the debate.

2. There is a growing questionning of the centrality of substitution as the key truth at the heart of all apostolic preaching -- that Jesus stood in my place, he bore the judgment due to me. That critique comes from "evangelicals."

3. There were a number of folks who struggled with how the sovereignty of God is worked out in the details of life.

What strikes me as I read the debate is how important it is to distinguish between the three. The first requires an apologetic for God's character and ways and a deconstruction of the morality of the person who thinks sacrifice and atonement is primitive. No one does that better than Keller. The second requires exegetical study and argument. I do not speak to unbelievers questions in the same way as to believers.

The first is not surprising and the ministry of explaining the reasons for why God does things is what Francis called "giving honest answers to honest questions"

The second is concerning. If "orthodoxy" now includes a minimizing of the substitutionary death of Christ, then where are the boundaries?

The third concern takes far more careful discussion and explanation than can be done in a comment section of a blog.

The entire debate revealed the weaknesses of the blogosphere as a forum for such communication . . . .

As I noted in my original post on the topic, the doctrine of the Atonement hearkens back to a set of moral norms of an archaic and barbaric age. The defensiveness displayed by Adrian and the other God bloggers just shows how out of sync this doctrine is with the moral climate of our age, both for believers and unbelievers.