Monster God or Monster Man? Michael Brown & Brian Zahnd Debate The Cross

If you grew up in a Western style evangelical or charismatic church circles you probably view how Christ took away our sins on the cross in a certain way. That God required a payment, a sacrifice, for our sins against him.  We were not worthy to pay that debt so Christ, in his love for us, goes to the cross and experiences shame, torture, and ultimately death on our behalf.  He does this to cover and remove our sin so that when the Father sees us, he really sees his Son Jesus and his wrath is no longer on us.

This “theory” of atonement (how Jesus removed our sins) is called Penal Substitutionary Atonement.  There was a legal punishment that was meant for us and Jesus “substituted” himself on our behalf allowing us to go free.

For me this kinda made sense since it was pretty much the only story we had. And generally the narrative is told with a focus on the incredible love Christ had for us and little emphasis was paid to the requirement of the Father.

But is it really “Good News”?  What does it reveal about the nature of God? Does God really require violence to satiate his wrath?

Recently Pastor Brian Zahnd debated theologian Michael Brown on this very issue.  The debate was entitled “Monster God or Monster Man” and explores whether the Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA) theory many of us came to Christ through in fact gives us a distorted picture of God.  Michael Brown to his credit gives a strong argument defending PSA and although I disagree with him the discussion is a wonderful example of two brothers wrestling over a very sensitive issue with respect for one another.