Monthly Archives: June 2021

Sheep and Wolves—How to Tell the Difference (DEI Series Conclusion)

2 Replies

In the previous essay I promised to explore three reasons why I do not believe that the principles of diversity-equity-inclusion philosophy as advocated by the academic champions of Critical Race Theory are mandated or supported by the Christian faith. I dealt with the first reason in the previous essay, arguing that DEI philosophy is a worldly political theory designed for governance of everyone within a sovereign state. Christianity is not a worldly political theory and does not obligate Christians to support any such philosophy. Today I will address the other two reasons and bring this series to a close.

Freedom versus Coercion

(2) DEI philosophy is not compatible with Christian ethics as taught in the New Testament. I can deal with this issue briefly because I addressed it already in the essay of June 4, 2021. As I argued in that essay, though Christianity is not a worldly political philosophy and does not obligate us to support any worldly political philosophy, some political orders are more compatible with Christianity than others. Christians surely want to live in a political order where they can freely embrace and practice faith in Jesus. Likewise, if Christians embrace Jesus’s Golden Rule they should also wish others to enjoy freedom to refuse or embrace Christianity. For this reason I argued that, if given a choice between classical liberalism and DEI political philosophy, clear thinking Christians will choose classic liberalism. I concluded the June 4th essay with these words:

Traditional liberalism embraces the truth of the saying, “The perfect is the enemy of the good.” In contrast, the philosophy of DEI aims at the unattainable goal of perfection and in doing so becomes the enemy of the good. DEI is not rational because it mistakes its utopian visions for politically achievable plans. It is not psychologically sound because it assumes people will in the long run acquiesce to having their property and positions taken away and redistributed to others in the name of diversity, equity, and inclusion. It is immoral in that it employs coercion, racial prejudice, theft, and injustice to achieve its goals. Hence DEI politics is most certainly not mandated by Christianity. And in contrast to liberal political philosophy, it is not even compatible with Christianity.

Ethical Incompatibility

(3) Diversity, equity, and inclusion, as understood in critical theory, are not Christian ethical principles. Nor are they compatible with Christian ethics. First, let’s get clear that the way of life set forth in the New Testament by Jesus and his apostles applies only to Jesus’s disciples, to his Church, that is, to people who claim to be and really are Christians. Now let’s take diversity, equity, and inclusion one at a time and assess their relationship to New Testament ethics.

Diversity

DEI philosophy treats diversity as a positive value in itself. According to this viewpoint the racial, ethnic, and gender makeup of the personnel within an institution—college, business, government agency, or private club—should reflect the proportions of those identity groups within society at large. Disparities in these proportions signal racism, sexism, or some other ugly prejudice as their hidden cause.

Christianity as described in the New Testament does not view diversity as a standalone value. When the NT mentions diversity of gifts and offices within the church (1 Cor 12; Eph 4), it always sets diversity in the context of unity and harmony. And it never seeks to reflect the diversity of group identities within society at large. Diversity is not an end in itself to be sought at the expense of other qualities central to the identity of the church. If the DEI philosophy were applied to the church, it would destroy it by making something other than faith in Christ the principle of inclusion.

Equity

DEI views equity through the eyes of group identity and social conflict. It is political to the core. Members of different racial groups must be treated differently to correct the inequalities among them. The Christianity of the New Testament views human beings within a universal frame. The gospel is preached to all people. All are invited to believe and participate. Within the family of believers, there are poor, widows, orphans, aged, sick, imprisoned, and others in vulnerable positions. Christian ethics is unambiguously clear that those within the church who are able to help those in need are obligated to do so (Matt 25:14-46; 1 John 3:17; James 2:14-17). However, Christian ethics does not countenance treating people differently based on race. It views people as individuals with their own strengths and weaknesses, resources and needs. We should rush to help the sick and the poor. The well and the rich do not need our assistance. Compassion, love, generosity, and hospitality are Christian virtues. Equity is not.

Inclusion

DEI philosophy makes inclusion a central moral principle, as if excluding anyone from any group or institution is always wrong. Of course, this notion is illogical and impractical. Inclusion is meaningless unless the group into which you want to be included has an identity, and identity involves exclusion as well as inclusion. If everyone is included in everything, no one is included in anything! (For more analysis of inclusion, see the essay of May 29, 2021.) DEI uses the rhetoric of inclusion to urge inclusion of certain favored (not all!) previously excluded groups.

The Christianity of the New Testament invites and welcomes people from every tribe, tongue, and nation. But it invites them to believe the gospel, repent of their sins, be baptized, and take up the life of a disciple of Jesus. It welcomes all who do this. However, if you do not believe in Jesus, do not want to stop sinning, if you reject baptism, and want to live according to the flesh, you are self-excluded. You cannot be a Christian unless you believe and live as a Christian! Christianity does not exclude or include anyone based on race or economic status.

Conclusion to the Series

I felt compelled to write this seven-part series on the diversity-equity-inclusion philosophy not so much because it is a destructive, divisive, impractical, and irrational political philosophy—though it is that!—but because I have had to endure the little sermons of some who proclaim that DEI philosophy is plainly, even supremely Christian. It is extremely painful to listen to such displays of pious ignorance and virtue signaling. Even with the most generous interpretation I can manage, it seems they have allowed the superficial resemblances of diversity, equity, and inclusion to Christian principles and their over-charitable—not to say naïve—interpretations of these terms to blind them to their true meaning and destructive implications. But I am very clear that DEI philosophy is not a Christian way of thinking. It is rather a deeply cynical deification of the primitive forces of nature. And opening the door of the Christian fold to this wolf in sheep’s clothing is an act of treachery in which I will not participate.

Can a Worldly Political philosophy be Christian? (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, Part Six)

7 Replies

In the previous post I concluded that

When people argue that the diversity-equity-inclusion philosophy is Christian, they are asking us to accept adherence to it as an essential component or a clear implication of the Christian ethics described in the New Testament. If they are correct, Christians are obligated to support DEI.

In this post and the next I will argue that diversity-equity-inclusion philosophy does not meet this standard.

A Preliminary Word to the Reader

Since I wrote the first draft of this essay, I’ve had conversations with two different parties that made it clear to me that many people who push back against my criticism of diversity-equity-inclusion philosophy have something completely different in mind than I have. I am thinking of a theory developed in elite academic settings. DEI philosophy is a recent repackaging of “critical theory” originally developed by European neo-Marxist political philosophers, mostly in Germany, in the middle decades of the twentieth century [See “Critical Theory” and “The Frankfort School” in the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy or look them up in Wikipedia.]. I’ve been reading in and about “Critical Theory” literature since my 1980s graduate school days. So when I hear it framed in terms of race rather than economic class I immediately recognize the basic logic as the same as the earlier form. It is obvious to me.

But it is not obvious to most people. Understandably, most people don’t read the elite academic literature of Critical Theory. When my conversation partners hear the words diversity, equity, and inclusion, they think classical liberal virtues. In the word “diversity” they hear the idea of a community where people of different backgrounds, cultures, and races are invited to bring their perspectives into the discussion about how to achieve the ideal community. When I use the word “equity” my friends think “equality,” the classical liberal ideal of treating everyone with equal respect whatever their color, economic status, or culture of origin. “Inclusion” to them means simply a welcoming attitude that excludes no one except those who exclude themselves.

You can see why some people are mystified that I would train my critical sights on diversity-equity-inclusion philosophy. To them I sound like I am anti-liberal, that I don’t believe in equality, and that I am afraid to associate with people unlike me. In actual fact, I agree with the values they mistakenly attribute to DEI philosophy, and I criticize DEI philosophy because it is not liberal!

Am I, then, fussing over words? In a sense the answer is yes. But only in a sense. In my view, if we do not mean by “diversity, equity, and inclusion” the illiberal values of Critical Theory, we ought to use different words and make clear our commitment to liberal values in clear opposition to illiberal academic Critical Theory. The reason is this: if we incorporate the words “diversity, equity, and inclusion” into our community vocabularies and in policy documents—in churches, businesses, and colleges—it will not be long before someone will read the illiberal academic and political meaning into those words and demand in legalistic fashion that we conform our practices to our stated policies. At that point it will be almost impossible to resist.

I return now to the original essay.

DEI—A Worldly Political Philosophy

Diversity-equity-inclusion philosophy is an ethical/political theory of justice designed to apply to everyone in a society in all spaces governed by law and regulation. It views justice as equal distribution of socioeconomic goods among identity groups within society. Unequal distribution of economic goods among identity groups—not economic classes as in Marxism—is proof of injustice. It rejects liberal philosophy’s theory of justice as equal application of law. It repudiates liberal society’s prioritization of individual freedom and its distribution of rewards and punishments according to merit and individual accomplishment. Instead, DEI philosophy insists that a just social system must produce equal outcomes of economic welfare for all identity groups. Mechanisms of distribution of goods must be designed to produce these just outcomes. Government at all levels must enact and enforce laws and regulations that counterbalance all forces—especially white supremacy—that tend toward injustice as defined by DEI philosophy. Because of government regulations and cultural pressure, such ostensibly private institutions as businesses, universities, service organizations, sports leagues, and even churches come under intense scrutiny and are expected to conform voluntarily even if such conformity makes no sense in terms of the educational, economic, or service goals of the institution.

Christianity is Not a Worldly Political Philosophy

Are Christians obligated to support this theory of justice and the policies, laws and regulations, and government actions that it demands? The answer is no for three reasons, only one of which I can address in this essay. (1) Christianity is not a worldly political philosophy. Worldly political philosophies propose ways in which all people living within a sovereign territory can live together within one order where “justice” reigns. In contrast, the Christianity of the New Testament proclaims only one message to a world composed of idolaters, secularists, atheists, criminals, and adherents of various religions: repent and believe the gospel. It has nothing further to say until a decision is make about this message. Jesus is not interested in forcing or enticing pagans and atheists to behave better, to share the wealth, to value diversity, to seek equity, or be more inclusive. The Christianity found in the New Testament does not use coercion to force conformity to its unique ethical vision, which involves being transformed by the Spirit of God into the image of Jesus. No one can be forced to become a Christian or live as one. The universal order envisioned by Christianity—the kingdom of God—is a realm of faith, freedom, and love. God alone can bring it about. The church’s task is to witness to that future by living in faith, freedom, and love in the present age. When well meaning human beings attempt to bring utopias into existence by their own power—even if they call them the “kingdom of God”—they end up looking more like the kingdom of the devil than the kingdom of God. Because DEI is a worldly political philosophy designed to govern all sorts of people under one secular system intended to produce worldly well being—whatever its strengths and weaknesses as a political philosophy as measured by reason—it can never become an essential component or a clear implication of the Christian ethics described in the New Testament. Hence Christians are not obligated as an implication of their faith to support the DEI political philosophy.

Is Diversity-Equity-Inclusion Philosophy Christian? (Part Five)

2 Replies

Cynical Strategies and Kneejerk Answers

Is diversity-equity-inclusion philosophy Christian? Of course, not everyone is interested in this question. The answer matters only to those for whom Christianity’s endorsement or lack thereof counts as evidence for or against DEI philosophy’s ethical force. Sincere Christians are interested because they want to know that their actions and the causes they champion are at least consistent with their Christian faith. Nominal Christians and cynical politicians (right or left) often assert or deny the Christian status of DEI philosophy because they wish to persuade sincere Christians to join their causes. I am not writing to them. Seeking only to win supporters, they have neither the desire nor the patience to investigate the question seriously. I am writing to help sincere Christians to think through this issue thoroughly, critically, and Christianly and to arm them against cynical actors who wish to recruit them for their causes by convincing them that DEI is (or is not) consistent with their Christian faith.

Unfortunately, when asked the question, “Is diversity-equity-inclusion philosophy Christian?” many people answer affirmatively or negatively with a kneejerk opinion based on a vague impression formed by little more than the resonance of the words with their experiences. In ordinary communication, precision of language is not necessary. The context supplies the clarity that overcomes the ambiguity in the words. But in theological, philosophical, and ethical discussions—especially controversial ones—precision and clarity are necessary. Such discussions require patience, discipline, and thoughtfulness. So, if you are interested in the question and are willing to follow a methodical and (hopefully) thoughtful line of reasoning, please continue reading.

Clarity First

Let’s clarify the grammatical and logical form of the question before we rush to give an answer. What are we asking when we inquire, “Is X Christian?” If we turn the question into an assertion (“X is Christian”) we can see that the word “Christian” is being used as a predicate adjective, that is, as an essential or accidental property attributed to a subject X. The word “Christian” can also be used as noun, designating a person who adheres to the Christian faith, so that we can ask, “Is X a Christian?” or we can assert that “X is a Christian.” Answering either of these questions or sustaining these assertions requires that we understand the essential nature of Christianity. Clearly, then, to answer the question, “Is the DEI philosophy Christian” we must possess a clear and precise understanding both of the DEI philosophy* and of Christianity.

What, then, is Christianity? As I said in Part Four of this series, we learn the answer to this question only from the New Testament. No system of beliefs, practices, and experiences that contradicts the New Testament answer qualifies as Christianity. And if you disagree here, there is nothing further to discuss until we settle that question. According to the New Testament, Christianity is a faith, a hope, a way of living, and a people. Christianity is faith in Jesus Christ crucified and risen bodily from the dead as universal King, Lord, and Savior. The people who embrace this faith look forward to the resurrection of the dead and eternal life in the presence of God. In the present time this people, the church, lives as disciples and imitators of Jesus and through the power of the Spirit are being transformed into his image. Who then is a Christian? Only those who believe in Jesus Christ and are baptized into him. Who is living as a Christian? Only those who hold to this faith and live as followers of Jesus as instructed by the apostolic teaching of the New Testament and are being transformed into his image.

The Decisive Issue

In view of this clarification, to ask “Is X Christian?” is to ask, “Is adherence to X an essential component of Christianity or an implication of the essential nature of Christianity as described in the New Testament?” It does not ask whether X is compatible with Christianity. Many beliefs and activities are compatible with Christianity but are neither essential components nor implications thereof. Christianity is compatible with your belief or disbelief of the proposition that Subarus are better cars than Hondas or that life in other galaxies is possible. Whether you enjoy playing tennis or prefer hiking makes no difference to your faith in Jesus. These beliefs and activities are not addressed by Christianity but are left to reason, free choice, and preference. There are, however, many beliefs and activities that are incompatible with Christianity because they negate or subvert or are in other ways exclude one another.

The Judgment to be Made

When people argue that the diversity-equity-inclusion philosophy is Christian, they are asking us to accept adherence to it as an essential component or a clear implication of the Christian ethics described in the New Testament. If they are correct, Christians are obligated to support DEI. If embracing DEI is not an essential component or a clear implication of Christian ethics, Christians have no such obligation. However, if DEI philosophy negates or subverts Christianity and Christian ethics as described in the New Testament, Christians have an obligation to reject it.

I shall argue in future essays not only that sincere Christians are not obligated to accept the DEI philosophy and support its agenda but that they are obligated to reject and resist it.

*See the previous four essays for my understanding of the DEI philosophy.

Is Diversity-Equity-Inclusion Politics Christian? (Part Four)

Leave a reply

My goal in the first three essays in this series on diversity-equity-inclusion philosophy* was to lay a descriptive and analytical foundation for assessing the claim that these values are consistent with and even mandated by Christianity. In my role as a professor of theology in a Christian college I deal with people every day who assert that diversity, equity, and inclusion are unambiguously Christian values. They are surprised when I do not join them in their uncritical acclamation and are puzzled, if not offended, when I ask them to prove their assertions. My goal in the next few essays is to assess this contention methodically and thoroughly. This process will take a while.

The Nature Theological Assessment

I am a Christian and an academic theologian. The business of a theologian is assessing theological proposals for their Christian character. People make all sorts of claims in the name of Christianity, the Bible, the church, and the Spirit. No rational person should accept a claim simply because someone makes it. But it is the special task of Christian theologians to subject theological claims to critical judgment in light of the original documents of the Christian faith, the Old and New Testaments of the canonical scriptures. I will accept no other standard of measurement.

I am fully aware that not everyone who claims to be a Christian or a Christian theologian agrees with me about the work of a theologian or the standard by which to assess the Christian nature of a theological claim. But I am laying my cards on the table, and I think those who disagree should do so as well. Those we wish to persuade deserve to know the source of our theological opinions and the norms by which we agree to have them judged.

The Difference between Theological, Ethical, and Political Statements

We must first disentangle the many entwined and overlapping meanings of diversity, equity, and inclusion. When someone advocates or rejects DEI philosophy, we need to know whether they are speaking theologically, ethically, politically, or some combination thereof. To speak theologically is to speak about God or about the relationship of something to God. The subject of ethics is the set of moral obligations humans have to each other. Politics has to do with how human beings order their lives for the common good. These areas are sometimes combined to create the subject areas of theological ethics and theology of politics. To engage in a productive debate, we need to be clear about what mode of speech we are using and to which set of norms we are appealing. In the previous essays I highlighted the reason I believe the topics of diversity, equity, and inclusion evoke such intense controversy at the present time. In American culture the debate is primarily political in nature with theological and ethical arguments tossed into the mix in an undisciplined way.

No Political Neutrality

No one would believe me if I claimed to harbor no political opinions and that I could present a theological analysis of DEI philosophy in a politically neutral way. I admit that I am not neutral. In the literature of Social Justice and Critical Race Theory that I have read and the discussions in which I have participated, diversity, equity, and inclusion are presented as desired outcomes of a social/political process that can be achieved only by direct or indirect government action. It is an outcomes-based political program opposed to the traditional American rules-based program. DEI theorists argue that the social system governed by such classic liberal rules as fairness, equal civil rights, merit-based rewards, economic freedom, etc. has not and cannot produce diversity, equity, and inclusion. Liberalism’s inability to produce the desired outcomes is proof that it is systemically racist, sexist, and homophobic. Hence government, corporations, and universities must use their power to reward those who implement DEI and punish those who do not attain these social outcomes.

I am not neutral between these two political philosophies. I embrace the classic liberal tradition of politics—the historic tradition of both major American parties and many minor parties—as greatly superior rationally, psychologically, morally, and theologically to the anti-liberal, utopian, coercive, and divisive DEI philosophy. I understand that traditional liberalism cannot produce the perfect society. I am clear that it is by no means identical to Christianity. Nor does it rise to the heights of Christian agape. The full range of the Christian faith and life can be practiced only within the church and even there only imperfectly. Unlike the church, the political sphere embraces everyone in a society, and people within American society differ widely as to their religious beliefs and personal preferences.

Liberalism deals with this diversity by granting everyone as much freedom as is consistent with the freedom of others. And imperfect people will sometimes use their freedom in imperfect ways to produce imperfect social outcomes. In response to DEI’s charge that liberalism produces imperfect outcomes, liberal political philosophy argues not only that freedom is a social good in itself, desired by all people, but that allowing millions of individuals to make billions of free decisions–governed by the rules of fairness, equality, and merit-based reward systems–will produce a better society over the long term than allowing a small group of government planners to dictate those decisions.

“The perfect is the enemy of the good.”

Traditional liberalism embraces the truth of the saying, “The perfect is the enemy of the good.” In contrast, the philosophy of DEI aims at the unattainable goal of perfection and in doing so becomes the enemy of the good. DEI is not rational, because it mistakes its utopian visions for politically achievable plans. It is not psychologically sound, because it assumes people will in the long run acquiesce to having their property and positions taken away and redistributed to others in the name of diversity, equity, and inclusion. It is immoral in that it employs coercion, racial prejudice, theft, and injustice to achieve its goals. Hence DEI politics is most certainly not mandated by Christianity. And in contrast to liberal political philosophy, it is not even compatible with Christianity.

*The three previous essays were posted on May 26, 27, and 29.

Is the Good News Still Good?

Leave a reply

Explaining Our Faith or Repeating Words?

In my experience most church members have never heard a serious discussion of the atonement. In a recent Sunday class I reviewed seven of the most prominent theories of how Jesus’s suffering and death save us from sin, death, and the devil. Hardly anyone had heard of even one of them. Indeed, the very idea that the historic church had held different theories of the atonement was surprising to most. Of course every Christian is familiar with liturgical phrases that assert in some way that “Jesus died for our sins.” However if you ask them how this works they have no answer.

The closest thing to an atonement theory that appears in evangelical churches can be heard in songs, sermons, prayers, and Eucharistic liturgies. Jesus “took our place,” in him “the wrath of God was satisfied,” “he bore it all,” and many more. All of these assertions derive in some way from the Bible as filtered through traditional Protestant theology. All of them contain an element of truth, but also, as I argue in The New Adam, place greatly distorted images in our minds. And what is just as problematic, hardly anyone who sings and prays them understands them or could explain them in a way that makes sense to an outsider. How can Christians explain to the world why the gospel of Jesus Christ is good news when they do not understand it themselves? I wrote The New Adam to address this problem.

From the Introduction to The New Adam:

Soteriological Dead Ends

Two options dominate the field for making sense of sin and salvation in contemporary Protestant Christianity, the evangelical penal substitution (PSA) and the liberal moral influence theories of atonement. Each theory proposes its own analysis of the problem to which Jesus Christ is the answer. Evangelical soteriology argues that sin offends God deeply and that to be true to his perfect justice God cannot merely forgive but must punish sin as it deserves. However in his great mercy, God sent Jesus into the world to endure in our place the punishment sin deserves and earn our forgiveness. In this way, Jesus Christ embodies God’s love and satisfies his justice in his one act of dying on the cross.

In contrast to this evangelical perspective, liberal atonement theory views sin as individual imperfection, ignorance, and sensuality or as unjust social structures that foster racism, sexism, economic disparities, and other evils. God is not an angry judge but a loving Father. Jesus helps us overcome sin by teaching about the love of God and living in a way that inspires us to live the way he lived. Jesus died on a Roman cross not to divert God’s wrath away from us and onto himself but to witness to God’s justice and love. God did not kill Jesus. The Romans killed him because he would not compromise his message. The way he died demonstrates his unwavering faith in the love of God and inspires the same confidence in us.

In my view, neither evangelical PSA nor liberal moral influence theory can meet the challenge we face today, that is, how may contemporary theology help the church to restate its soteriology in a way true to the apostolic faith and comprehensible to people living now? Since the evangelical theory pervades not only evangelical theology but also evangelical sermons, song lyrics, and personal piety, I devote two full chapters to documenting, analyzing, and criticizing this viewpoint. Despite its claims of biblical faithfulness, traditional rootedness, and theological soundness, I argue that evangelical PSA falls short in all three areas.

Nor can it be made understandable to people inside or outside the contemporary church. Since liberal theology and mainline churches are the default religious options for those looking for alternatives to evangelicalism, I devote a chapter to liberal soteriology. Liberalism rightly senses that traditional soteriology makes no sense to modern people, so it attempts to translate Christianity into present-day terms. However in my view, it evacuates the substance of the apostolic faith in the process. Nor does its simplistic diagnosis of the human condition take seriously the human capacity for evil. Consequently, its solutions strike me as superficial.

My Life Project and Why I Chose It

2 Replies

As regular readers know, my book The New Adam: What the Early Church Can Teach Evangelicals (and Liberals) About the Atonement was just published. In the next few posts I plan to introduce the message of this book by quoting and commenting on sections of the introduction and conclusion. These are sections not available in the Amazon.com preview. I hope these posts will motivate you to read the book and tell others about it. I don’t get invited to appear on Fox News, CNN or MSNBC. There are many thousands of books published every day. So, my book and most others find their way into the hands of readers by word of mouth recommendations. Many early readers have already done this, and I am grateful. Books like mine don’t make money…but in certain cases they change lives. I wrote this book for that individual who at this moment in their life needs this message. I pray that they find it.

Let me tell you a bit about the book. As a young adult I realized that churches within my circle had focused nearly all their thinking and teaching on small doctrinal differences at issue among Christians and taken for granted the central truths of the faith and the Christian way of life. I sensed that someday these central truths would no longer be generally accepted by the majority of a fast-evolving post-Christian culture. I came to believe that within my lifetime, believers would be forced to explain and defend the basic affirmations of their faith to a hostile audience. They were not prepared to do this then and they not prepared now. Many have and will fall away for this reason. As I was writing these lines the solemn words of Jesus recorded in Matthew 24 came to mind:

9 “Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me. 10 At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, 11 and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. 12 Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, 13 but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved.

Though the immediate occasion for these words was the impending divine judgment on Jerusalem and the Temple, they express the perennial situation of those who seriously embrace the way of discipleship to Jesus.

So, I made it my life project to think through, defend, and explain the basic teachings of Christianity to my contemporaries and the next generations. For the past twenty years I have been writing about the major topics of Christian doctrine: God, Trinity, creation, providence, and church. I aimed to read the best, highest level thinkers on each topic and write at the highest level I could while keeping the book readable by students, ministers, and interested others. For years I’ve wanted to write on the atonement. Only after I wrote the other books and attained the age of 64 years did I think I was ready to begin this profound topic so central to Christian faith. That was six years ago. I am now 70 years old. The New Adam contains the fruit of that labor. Here is the first section of my Introduction along with a teaser from the next section:

Friends sometimes ask how long it takes to write a book. “A lifetime!” I reply without hesitation. We bring everything we have learned to each project we take up. In writing this book I have been acutely conscious of this truth. I have been listening to the Christian message of sin, salvation, and atonement my whole life. I heard it in church services and college classes. I read about it in the Bible and in books of theology. All along I thought I understood what my teachers were saying. A few years ago, however, after having taught theology for over a decade, I realized I did not understand at all. Whenever I taught about the atonement, I found myself repeating phrases taken from Scripture and describing textbook theories of atonement apart from a lively sense of their truth.

Nor was I able to help my students understand. I began to pay closer attention to the ways contemporary preachers, teachers, and popular authors explained the message of salvation. I concluded that they understood it no better than I. At that point, I determined that I had to write this book. It has been a long journey, and there were times when I thought I would never achieve the breakthrough I was seeking. But the moment came when I saw a little light, a glow that grew brighter as I moved toward it. Now when I contemplate the salvation that has come into the world through Jesus Christ I rejoice with my mind as well as my heart.

I hope this book can help others understand the Christian message of salvation in a way that resonates with their experience and strikes them as good news. I offer it as a guide for professors, students, pastors, teachers, and church leaders in their ministries. The book aims to help readers gain a sense of rapport and continuity with the community created by the original gospel events and discover new ways of presenting this good news to those outside. In working toward these ends, I desire to be faithful to Scripture, respectful of tradition, and consistent with reason. Of course, many other writers care about these matters and hold dear these values. I engage with their ideas to affirm or criticize, accept or reject. However, two theological viewpoints on salvation require extensive examination because of their outsized influence and largely negative impact on contemporary Christianity. I consider them soteriological dead ends, and we must move past them if the light is to grow brighter.

Soteriological Dead Ends

Two options dominate the field for making sense of sin and salvation in contemporary Protestant Christianity, the evangelical penal substitution and the liberal moral influence theories of atonement…[to be continued].