We Anabaptists pride ourselves in being People of the Book. Unlike many Christian denominations, we dress modestly, practice the head covering, and follow Jesus’ teaching from the Sermon on the Mount.
Yet when it comes to the nuts and bolts of our theology, we don’t always understand why we believe what we believe. With this in view, Christian Light Publications recently published the book Sacrifice or Penalty? In it, Keith Crider addresses what he sees as a fundamental error in our understanding of Christ’s death.
Penal Substitution is the teaching that all people deserve death because of sin, but Christ died in our place and satisfied God’s justice by paying our penalty, providing salvation for all who believe on him. By contrast, Crider describes Christ’s death as a sacrifice – God’s “merciful provision” to deal with sin. If you find this contrast confusing, you’re not alone. I struggled to see the difference until Crider explained his concerns about the penal theory.
Crider’s disagreement is twofold: first, that believing Jesus took our punishment “almost invariably leads to a casual attitude toward sin,” and second, that the concept of Jesus’ death satisfying God’s justice is merely a Western idea.
In reading the book, I agree with Crider on a number of points. “Words are important,” he says, and we should be careful with the theological terms we use to describe salvation. I realize my own tendency to use terms without fully understanding their meanings or implications. I also agree with Crider’s warning not to uncouple the gospel from the context of the Old Testament.
However, while I applaud him for turning to scripture to explain his positions, I largely disagree with both his methods and his conclusions. Although I don’t have room to address most of my concerns, I will point out a few.
First, I feel that Crider is not entirely fair. Though he recognizes there are many judicial satisfaction variations, most of the book deals only with the “most objectionable form of the penal theory” that teaches Jesus became sinful on the cross and suffered in Hell after his death. Without addressing the majority of Christians who believe otherwise, Crider makes clear that variations of the satisfaction theory are not more Biblical, but only “less objectionable forms” of false teaching. By lumping everyone into the extremes, he spends much of his time addressing straw man issues rather than real ones.
Second, Crider states his intent to use only terms found in the Bible, but sometimes was forced to retranslate certain Biblical terms to better fit his position. And though he explains why those terms could be translated differently, he didn’t always explain why they should be (see Ch. 9). Other times he gives “proof texts” instead of a full explanation (pp. 87-88, for example). Many of the verses he uses seem to support his position, but he leaves out some verses dealing with justice, sin, and the sacrificial system that are more difficult. Though Crider’s book “emphasizes what the Bible says,” that does not place it beyond the danger of false interpretation.
Third, Crider juxtaposes his position as the only alternative to the “extreme Calvinism” he disputes. Yet his position comes with its own set of problems which he does not (and perhaps cannot) answer.
For instance, Crider prefers using the term “merciful provision” when describing the sacrificial system. But why did God’s merciful provision require the death of a lamb? Instead, he could have required a gift of money, a spiritual pilgrimage, or almost anything else imaginable. If the blood sacrifice simply tested one’s obedience and faith, then the requirements are arbitrary. Eventually, one must come to the logical end: why send Jesus to die at all?
I do not think Crider intends to mislead anyone; I also don’t think he realizes the full implication of his position. In seeking to address error on one front, his overreaction opens the door to error on another. Crider’s own words seem fitting here: “When we emphasize any one aspect of God’s truth over another, we will naturally come out at least partially wrong.”