The Wrath of God, the Death of Jesus, and The Alabama Baptist. (Take 2)

Last week I highlighted Bob Terry’s editorial in The Alabama Baptist entitled “Why Disagree About the Words of a Hymn?”  Dr. Terry seemed to deny substitutionary atonement in the editorial and I was not alone in this estimation.  In fact, there was such an overwhelming reaction to the original post that he wrote a clarification on Friday afternoon.  He has added several additional paragraphs since then and I thought that it was appropriate to post some follow-up thoughts since his clarifications have come out.

My reflections on this issue are listed under the headings of encouragements and a concern.  Some things that he has said since them have encouraged me and there is still one concern that I have.  Please do not skip over my encouragements and only read the concern.  My original post was not intended to be vindictive, but to point out what appeared to be a serious doctrinal error.  This post is written because after raising the concerns that I did in the last post, it only feels right to say where things have been clarified.

Encouragements
Dr. Terry responded to the concerns that people had quickly.  Many people retreat and go into hiding when there is a strong reaction to something that they wrote.  Dr. Terry came out with a statement on Friday afternoon after people began questioning him on Thursday night.  This allowed him to put out a statement to address concerns and do it in a way that is thoughtful.  I commend him for publishing the clarification and for doing so in a timely manner.

Also, he seemed to be genuinely bothered by the idea that people were questioning his belief in susbstitutionary atonement.  He states that writing anything that would call into question Jesus’ atoning work would be “inappropriate” and says that he believes in substitutionary atonement.  One of the more helpful things that Dr. Terry did in the second clarification was to point people two other editorials that he has written here and here that further demonstrate his view on the atonement.

Concern
In his clarification, Dr. Terry says “That anything I write would call into question the atoning work of Jesus Christ is inappropriate and to those who read this editorial that way, I apologize.”  Something about the wording bothered me and it’s the phrase “and to those who read this editorial that way.”  He insinuates that there was a problem on the part of the reader and that is the reason for the dustup over this words.

Here are the words that caused the original stir, “Some popular theologies do hold that Jesus’ suffering appeased God’s wrath. That is not how I understand the Bible and that is why I do not sing the phrase ‘the wrath of God was satisfied’ even though I love the song ‘In Christ Alone.'”  Too many people read these words and saw a denial of substitution for the problem to be with the reader.  The clarification would have gone over much better if he would have acknowledged that he can look at his words and see why people reacted the way that they did.  It was difficult to read the clarifications without thinking, “yes, but what about what you said in this editorial?”

Conclusion
After reading both of the pieces, it’s still difficult to say exactly what Dr. Terry believes about the atonement.  That seems like a strange thing to say, but there is one huge denial of a central tenet of the faith hanging out there that has not been retracted.  At the same time, Dr. Terry has affirmed things that contradict his denial.  When apparent discrepancies like these exist, the wisest course of action is to show the same grace that we have been extended.  We should take Dr. Terry at his word when he says that he believes in substiutionary atonement.  Hopefully, Dr. Terry’s future writings will further affirm the heart of the Gospel and maybe we’ll even see something that explains this statement: “Some popular theologies do hold that Jesus’ suffering appeased God’s wrath. That is not how I understand the Bible.”

All of this should remind us that words matter.  What we say when we are explaining our theology is not a trifling matter and choosing one word instead of another is the difference between standing in the faith once for all delivered to the saints and standing outside of it.  If this discussion had been about the details of eschatological views or Bible version preferences, it would not have been worth having.  What has been discussed this last week is at the heart of the Christian faith.  Because of his love for us, God gave his own Son who willingly gave his life to satisfy God’s justice.  His Son was raised from the dead and is seated at the right hand of God until his return.  Any person who trusts in Jesus is adopted as God’s child, completely forgiven, and stands perfectly righteous before God.