Current Softness on Hard Theology

As most thinking and informed Americans know, there is much heated debate over the cause and solution to modern terrorism. However, what many have not explored is the fact that much of the debate stems from opposing views of “softness” and “hardness” on positions regarding directions for the future of Western Civilization. In addition, there is the question of how the church is contributing to or combating the growing “soft” perspective.

By soft approaches, I refer to the removal of any perceived harsh elements whatever the forum for discussion. Along these lines, several viewpoints merge as representative of the soft perspective: pacifistic or appeasing responses to terrorism rather than strong military responses, rehabilitation of criminals in place of punishment, feminist imagery and rejection of male traits, and the removal of harshness from theological doctrines. Concerning the last point, traditional formulations of the Second Coming of Christ are rejected because the imagery is militaristic and harsh (2 Thess. 1:6-9). Related to this, the classical view of God’s nature as Judge is replaced by a God who would never inflict painful judgment upon individuals. Although such soft approaches have abounded throughout history, there seems to be a resurgence of them in our day with new twists that need to be explored.

One major area in which softness has emerged is in the doctrine of the
atonement and particularly, the nature of the atonement—what happened when Jesus died on the cross. There have been several views such as the ransom to Satan view, the Abelardian moral influence theory, and the Anselmic view. The Anselmic view is a satisfaction view. Anselm (1033–1109) held that Jesus died to satisfy the honor of God. While his satisfaction idea was correct, it remained for the Reformers (especially Calvin) to clarify that Jesus died in our place to satisfy the wrath of God upon sin. This view is consistent with the teaching of the Bible, and has become known as the penal substitutionary view.

In opposition to this penal substitutionary view of the atonement, a recent position has been labeled “the non-violent atonement,” which is in essence a modification of the ransom to Satan view. One principal proponent who has written a book with that title is J. Denny Weaver, a religion teacher at Bluffton University in Ohio. In Weaver’s understanding, the non-violent perspective of the atonement is much superior to the violent dimensions of the satisfaction view. He suggests that the penal view accommodates violence as a positive category, which in turn yields the sanctioning of unacceptable social activity. Consequently, there is a deliberate choice by those who hold the so-called non-violent view of the atonement to use softer language to describe life and doctrine. Hard masculine images are rejected in favor of softer, more feminine and nurturing descriptions. The warrior is rejected; the lover is embraced.

A perceived hardness in each area is usually tied to some form of God’s judgment, whether involving deserving men or of Christ Himself on the cross. Oftentimes, the perceived harshness is viewed as flowing from political power plays and male dominance in history. It should be, according to this understanding, modified or replaced by insights from feminist and other advocacy groups.

Without hesitation, my response to all of this is to encourage Bible- believing Christians to stand their ground and not abandon the so called
hard sayings of God’s word. Pastors should not shrink from declaring the whole counsel of God even when such proclamation is not culturally acceptable. Jesus is returning to make all things right, even when that coming includes judgment from God. There is a real hell of eternal destruction to be shunned. Jesus in space and time really did die a violent death, physically and spiritually. It was an event of unspeakable punishment. War is sometimes a viable option for the believer.

Mike Stallard (Ph.D.) is Professor of Systematic Theology and Director of the Ph.D. program at BBS. He is an experienced pastor who has pastured various church plants and churches.

return to the Fall 2006 Paraklesis