Hmm...Must a traditional understanding of the Trinity and the inner relationships of the Trinity be rejected in order to call penal or satisfaction or substitutionary theories of the atonement "cosmic child abuse"?

I’ll be trading in the pasty-white hues of winter for a tan over the next five days while generating more thoughts at the intersection between life and God and contemplating your helpful deposits of reader wisdom.  Here are a few from the past few days for the benefit of the Fellowship:

Apparently “The Beloved Oppressor and Bad Atonement Theories” from Sunday sparked some controversy.  Paul from somewhere in the blogosphere writes, One should learn at least a little theology before critiquing it.

After checking with my beloved husband to make sure he didn’t write this, (which is something usually only a husband who is thankfully smarter than me and knows it would say), I asked Paul if he cared to elaborate.  Paul writes back:  Sure.  The divine child abuse theory critique of the atonement can only obtain if the biblical understanding of the Godhead is set aside and Father, Son, and their relationship are redefined according to an almost total anthropological analogy. In other words the traditional understanding of the Trinity and the inner relationships of the Trinity must be rejected in order to call penal or satisfaction or substitutionary theories of the atonement cosmic child abuse. That for starters. By saying that I am not intending it as a defense of the penal or satisfaction theories, merely as a critique of your critique. If those theories are to be rejected they must be rejected on other grounds.

I have a note in to Paul inquiring about where he teaches theology, since he writes just abstrusely enough to be a professor somewhere. (Please don’t take this as an insult, Paul- I love professors, am married to one, and may become one some day. I look forward to continuing the conversation, and thanks for engaging.)  Incidentally, if you didn’t catch the Saturday Night Live reappearance of Admiral General Aladeen, I’ve included it below for a few more laughs.

My own version of “Coffee with Jesus,” in which Jesus sits down with controversial “manliness” expert and Mars Hill pastor Mark Driscoll (http://blog.beliefnet.com/fellowshipofsaintsandsinners/2012/01/coffee-with-jesus-jesus-sits-down-with-mark-driscoll.html), sparks the following observations from Ralph:  I must admit, when I read or hear criticism based on tone….or attitude, of a minister…. without any reference to the minister’s basis (namely, in Driscoll’s case, the Apostle Paul–and the whole of the male-led & written New Testament Church and text) with just critical inferences, based on nothing deeper than current day assumptions (like equal value MUST mean equal roles) it reminds me of the typical “arguments” (really non-arguments) made by secularists on other social issues, which never get to the heart of the issues, but always dance around obsessing on appearances.

Finally, Adam leaves some thoughtful reflections in response to “Lost and Found” and “Narcissistic Evangelism”: Great blog post, Kristina. I believe that as Christians we have been tasked to be adoption agents. Evangelism is sharing with the world that there is a perfect and loving Father who loves them, and is not mad at them. This father wants to bring them into a new identity, and destiny that was intended for them from the beginning of time. We Christians hold the adoption papers for the world who has never encountered this perfect love, grace, and mercy. The adoption process can take years or it can take seconds depending on where in the process we find the person. We cannot convince anyone to fall in love with Jesus, but we can show them that they are loved, and that they have been purchased by a loving Father.

Thank you, Paul, Ralph and Adam!  I hope you’ll keep coming back to share, vent, fume, and inspire the rest of us more catatonic saints and sinners.

By way of update, my Good Friday sermon, “Desperate Housewife or God’s Dreamer,” has been republished at http://www.goodpreacher.com/index.php.  (If you can actually find it there, will you let me know?)

Also, a reminder that yesterday’s “Top Ten Pet Peeves Re: Preachers and the Sermons They Deliver” (http://blog.beliefnet.com/fellowshipofsaintsandsinners/2012/05/top-ten-pet-peeves-re-preachers-and-the-sermons-they-deliver.html) is awaiting more big gripes for an eventual vote on the Top Ten in advance of next week’s Homiletics Festival! Leave one below!

Now, for some more laughs thanks to the Beloved Oppressor: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/06/sacha-baron-cohen-stops-by-snl-as-general-aladeen_n_1490156.html.