Punishment as Reconciliation?

I ran across a blog post by Kim Fabricius on the blog Faith and Theology. The post is called Ten propositions on penal substitution, and I thought she raised some interesting points. First, a couple of definitions:

penal substitution -- (Just remember, I have no idea what I'm talking about) -- If substitution means "taking the place of" and penal conveys the idea of retributive justice, then penal substitution would imply that God accepts us because our punishment for our sins was diverted onto Christ -- Christ's crucifixion was our punishment, and that is how we are justified in front of God.

raised some interesting points -- defined as points with which Kim (me) agrees

I like the author of the post's idea that we make a mistake if we assume that the cross was divine punishment (emphasis mine). To quote her post, we need to eliminate the idea that "Jesus died to placate or appease God, or to secure a change in God’s attitude, or to settle a score or balance the books – and, indeed, the notion that the cross is itself a divine punishment. Rather than drive such a wedge a between God and Jesus, the cross expresses their unity and mutual love."

She then goes on to say that it wasn't God's desire for His son to be crucified -- in other words, He didn't arrange it; we did. It was his desire for His son to become human, thus placing Jesus in the situation where he was vulnerable to the effects of our sin.

Kim Fabricius then goes on to explain the word sacrifice a little. Think of sacrifice in the Old Testament -- it was never a punishment for the animal being sacrificed. It was was gift used to bring the children of God closer to God. I like her word for it -- restorative. She says it is essential to see it as a means to a "transformation of a relationship." And then this quote, "Substitution is grace” (Gunton). And grace, not sin, runs the show." I love that -- "And grace, not sin, runs the show!"

Steve is reading a book called The Will of God by Leslie D. Weatherhead for his Wednesday morning men's group. As he was reading Tuesday night, he said, "Listen to this -- you'll love this." He read me a story from the book about a man's child dying from cholera, and how the man believed it to be the will of God. The last line of the story stuck with me. "Surely we cannot identify as the will of God something for which a man would be locked up in jail, or put in a criminal lunatic asylum." I've never thought of it that way, but I find it to be very "interesting" -- remember "interesting" means that it is a point with which I find myself to be in agreement.

If we believe in the trinity, and if we believe that Jesus is our best example of what God is like, then we have to ask ourselves if the image of God as a God who would insist on His son's violent and horrible death as a punishment matches what we know about Jesus. If Jesus is the mirror of God -- our best mirror to understand God -- then if we see Jesus as loving, non-violent, and merciful, then we have to think that God has the same qualities. To quote Kim's post once again, "Spin it as retributive justice all you like, I am with James Alison: “Nothing that is dependent on vengeance can be called reconciliation.”

What do I know? I know "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." (John 3:16). While I do enjoy thinking about questions such as this, and I think we are called to use our brains to explore those things that we do not understand, I know that I will never really understand it all. Neither will anybody else, and when any of are convinced that they know all the answers, we can rest assured that they do not. And I am comforted by the idea that I don't need to.

God's got this one covered.