When Atonement Theology Needs Atoning: Penal Substitution and the (lack of) Concern for Suffering

For Christians, explaining the significance of Jesus’s crucifixion tends to be an important confessional component of religious membership and adherence. While there is no single interpretation that all Christians agree upon, a few specific atonement theologies dominate in United States evangelicalism. One of those interpretations is penal substitutionary atonement (PSA). Typically attributed to Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109) then adapted by John Calvin (1509-1564) during the Protestant Reformation, PSA takes a legalistic approach to understanding why Jesus was killed, emphasizing that God’s wrath towards humanity needed an outlet and Jesus sacrificed himself to receive God’s punishment, even though he had never sinned. For the plethora of PSA-endorsers (e.g., Piper, 2007; Schreiner, 2006), there are similar numbers of critics (e.g., Park, 2009; Trelstad, 2006). Common critiques include that PSA is too individualistic, that PSA may legitimize violence, and that PSA is an exegetical misinterpretation of scripture. These critiques seem especially intense when combined with theological defenses of gender complementarianism, or the belief that God made men and women essentially different with the intention for men to have authority over women who should happily submit to men’s will and decisions (Piper, 2006). Understanding the influence of internalized PSA on US evangelicals is one way to parse out which proponents’ or critics’ claims have any degree of legitimacy. This is an especially important task in today’s current climate as religion is often cited as a fundamental motivating factor for people’s social and political stances. From access to reproductive healthcare to border immigration policies to policies impacting the lives of trans people to opinions on the US involvement in international conflicts, US Christians hold divergent theologically-influenced stances. For those US evangelical Christians that adhere to PSA and hold gender complementarianism as sacrosanct, though, these socio-political leanings may not be that surprising. 

Findings from an empirical study of evangelicals will be presented with the goal of identifying some of the ways PSA relates to the attitudes and beliefs of its adherents. 225 masters-level students at an Evangelical seminary were asked about their beliefs in PSA (Calvinist-Arminian Beliefs Scale; Sorenson, 1981), complementarian gender roles (Colaner & Warner, 2005), and responsibility for reducing pain and suffering (single item from the Faith Maturity Scale – Short Form; Piedmont & Nelson, 2001). In short, stronger adherence to PSA was significantly associated with lower levels of concern for alleviating others’ suffering, with gender complementarian beliefs mediating the negative association. While this relationship only scratches the surface of how theological beliefs may influence attitudes and behaviors, it is also an invitation to theologians, practitioners, religious leaders, and seminary faculty to pause and wrestle with uncomfortable questions about intentional or unintentional harm certain theological stances, in this instance, PSA and gender complementarianism, have on adherents and the ripple effects those stances, when aggregated in communities, have on the larger society. 

REFERENCES 

Anselm of Canterbury. (1998). St. Anselm basic writings: Proslogium, Mologium, Gaunilo’s in behalf of the fool, Cur Deus homo. (S.N. Deane, trans.). Peru, IL: Open Court Publishing. 

Calvin, J. (1845). Institutes of Christian Religion. Retrieved from: http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/institutes/institutes.html. 

Colaner, C.W., & Warner, S.C. (2005). The effect of egalitarian and complementarian gender role attitudes on career aspirations in evangelical female undergraduate college students. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 33, 224-249. 

Park, A.S. (2009). Triune atonement: Christ’s healing for sinners, victims, and the whole creation. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox. 

Piedmont, R.L., & Nelson, R. (2001). A psychometric evaluation of the short form of the Faith Maturity Scale. Research in the Social Scientific Study of Religion, 12, 165-183. 

Piper, J. (2006). A vision of biblical complementarity: Manhood and woman defined according to the Bible. In J. Piper & W. A. Grudem (Eds.), Recovering biblical manhood and womanhood: A response to evangelical feminism (pp.31-59). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books. 

Piper, J. (2007). Foreword. In S. Jeffrey, M. Ovey, & A. Sach, Pieced for our transgressions: Rediscovering the glory of penal substitution (pp.13-16). Nottingham, England: InterVarsity Press. 

Schreiner, T. R. (2006). Penal substitution view. In J. Bielby & P. R. Eddy (Eds.), The nature of atonement: Four views (pp.67-117). Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic. 

Sorenson, R.C. (1981). Evangelical seminarians' philosophies of human nature and theological beliefs. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 20, 33-38. 

Trelstad, M. (Ed.). (2006). Cross examinations: Readings on the meaning of the cross today. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress.