Woke atonement is broke atonement

If there’s one thing woke theology doesn’t like, it’s the idea of an angry God.

A God of wrath who denounces sin and exacts justice for infractions of His Law? Ew.

If you’re wondering what “woke theology” exactly is, you’ll be pressed (not surprisingly) to find an agreed-upon definition. But in general, it’s a “progressive” approach to Christianity that interprets God, sin, salvation, justice, and the Gospel primarily through the lens of contemporary social justice values, especially those related to power, oppression, identity, inclusion, and trauma. And even though the woke movement hit the skids a year or so ago, its impact is still being felt in Christendom. 

From a high-level, woke theology sees divine anger as abusive, and prioritizes therapeutic language over moral categories, while viewing humans as victims needing liberation rather than sinners needing forgiveness.

That being the case, the concept of Jesus stepping into our place — being our substitute — and satisfying divine justice is rejected outright. In its place are other various theories of Christ’s atonement such as Christus Victor (Jesus achieved a cosmic victory over the powers of sin, death, and evil) and especially the Moral influence position, which says we have a spiritual sickness from which we must be healed, and so Christ’s death was only a demonstration of God’s great love for us, influencing us to live moral lives.  

For a couple of practical examples, see what Dan Foster says in his article, Why I Stopped Believing God Needed to Kill Someone to Forgive Me:

“When Jesus went to the cross, he did not go to change God’s heart. He went to show us God’s heart. He went to expose the full weight of human violence, religious power, and political fear — and to absorb it without retaliation. He showed us what love looks like in the face of hate. He revealed a God who does not demand blood, but offers mercy even while being crucified … He was breaking the cycle of retribution.”

Then there’s this from a sister article of his entitled, What If God Didn’t Need Jesus to Die? (Recovering the Non-Violent Heart of Christian Forgiveness): “So when he was crucified, it was not to meet a divine demand but to show what happens when love confronts a world addicted to violence. The cross was not payment. It was the natural consequence of a life lived without fear in a fearful world.”

The only thing I see wrong with these statements is that they aren’t biblical. Let me explain.

A biblical view of Christ’s atonement

Let’s first remember that Christ’s atonement (literally “at-onement”) was done to satisfy God on behalf of our wrongdoings and is the means by which the guilt-punishment chain produced by our violation of God’s will is broken. This results in us being reconciled to Him; Paul mentions this when he writes, “We also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement” (Rom. 5:11).  

Because of that, we who are unrighteous in ourselves are nevertheless declared righteous before God while still in our sinning state — something called justification: “So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men” (Rom 5:18).

And while Foster says, “the cross was not payment,” Scripture specifically says it was: “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us” (Gal. 3:13).

All good so far?

Now, it’s true there have been deep debates on how this was accomplished in Christ’s work on the cross. I mentioned two above, but others include the retribution, ransom, optional and necessary satisfaction, government, and mystical atonement theories.

The one that I believe is spot-on biblically and rejected by woke theology because it is “cosmic violence,” is the penal substitution theory that says God’s absolute justice has been violated, so a substitution for our sins had to be made by the sinless Son of God. It rests on the biblical foundations of a holy God, divine wrath, real guilt on our side, and the need for atonement and reconciliation.  

In his book, Atonement and the Death of Christ, William Lane Craig defines the substitution theory as “Christ voluntarily suffers the punishment that we justly deserve, thereby satisfying the demands of divine justice so that God can forgive sins without compromising His righteousness.” Sounds right to me.

But it sounds wrong to woke proponents who redefine anger, sin, justice, and love. Once those categories shift, God’s wrath becomes morally unacceptable.

To them, anger equals harm so God cannot be wrathful. Humans are victims, not sinners; therefore, no guilt or judgment exists. God’s Law becomes therapeutic ethics, and any conviction is labeled trauma. Inclusion trumps holiness; therefore, judgment is immoral. Violence is evil (at least, in lip service), so the crucifixion cannot be an atoning event. And lastly, God is only love (redefined), and so wrath is incompatible with His character.

You read through their rationale and rejection of God’s wrath/justice for sin and wonder if the woke have ever read and understood the Old Testament? Or the book of Revelation? Or the end of Jesus’ Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24?

While the woke theologians will call substitutionary atonement a fear-based theology, the fact is the Bible tells us fear has its place in life, that “the wages of sin is death” (Rom 6:23). And that God’s character is one where love and justice are melded together to create the only outcome where God can destroy evil without destroying us in the process.

A rejection of penal substitutionary atonement not only undercuts the eternal justice of God but also undermines the objective reconciliation between God and sinners, the historical and biblical foundation for the Gospel, and the assurance we have in Christ’s sacrificial work.

Speaking on this topic in his commentary on 2 Corinthians, Simon J. Kistemaker writes:

“The question always remained as to why God was willing to overcome his anger toward sin as he reached out to us in love and peace. Now the apostle [Paul] explains that God took his sinless Son and made him the sinbearer in our place. God had his Son pay the death penalty for our sins, so that we might be set free and declared righteous in his sight. Christ redeemed us by taking upon himself the curse that rested on us” (Gal. 3:13).

In the end, if woke theology doesn’t embrace the idea of an angry God and a substitutionary atonement, it’s because they’re interpreting Scripture through their leftist social framework. Furthermore, they misunderstood the character of God and the fact that His attributes are infinite in depth and interwoven — wrath and love being just two of them.

And so, if penal substitution is the correct interpretation of Christ’s atonement, what should we do? We thank God for His substitute and “wait for His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead, that is Jesus, who rescues us from the wrath to come” (1 Thess. 1:10).

If there’s one thing woke theology doesn’t like, it’s the idea of an angry God.

A God of wrath who denounces sin and exacts justice for infractions of His Law? Ew.

If you’re wondering what “woke theology” exactly is, you’ll be pressed (not surprisingly) to find an agreed-upon definition. But in general, it’s a “progressive” approach to Christianity that interprets God, sin, salvation, justice, and the Gospel primarily through the lens of contemporary social justice values, especially those related to power, oppression, identity, inclusion, and trauma. And even though the woke movement hit the skids a year or so ago, its impact is still being felt in Christendom. 

From a high-level, woke theology sees divine anger as abusive, and prioritizes therapeutic language over moral categories, while viewing humans as victims needing liberation rather than sinners needing forgiveness.

That being the case, the concept of Jesus stepping into our place — being our substitute — and satisfying divine justice is rejected outright. In its place are other various theories of Christ’s atonement such as Christus Victor (Jesus achieved a cosmic victory over the powers of sin, death, and evil) and especially the Moral influence position, which says we have a spiritual sickness from which we must be healed, and so Christ’s death was only a demonstration of God’s great love for us, influencing us to live moral lives.  

For a couple of practical examples, see what Dan Foster says in his article, Why I Stopped Believing God Needed to Kill Someone to Forgive Me:

“When Jesus went to the cross, he did not go to change God’s heart. He went to show us God’s heart. He went to expose the full weight of human violence, religious power, and political fear — and to absorb it without retaliation. He showed us what love looks like in the face of hate. He revealed a God who does not demand blood, but offers mercy even while being crucified … He was breaking the cycle of retribution.”

Then there’s this from a sister article of his entitled, What If God Didn’t Need Jesus to Die? (Recovering the Non-Violent Heart of Christian Forgiveness): “So when he was crucified, it was not to meet a divine demand but to show what happens when love confronts a world addicted to violence. The cross was not payment. It was the natural consequence of a life lived without fear in a fearful world.”

The only thing I see wrong with these statements is that they aren’t biblical. Let me explain.

A biblical view of Christ’s atonement

Let’s first remember that Christ’s atonement (literally “at-onement”) was done to satisfy God on behalf of our wrongdoings and is the means by which the guilt-punishment chain produced by our violation of God’s will is broken. This results in us being reconciled to Him; Paul mentions this when he writes, “We also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement” (Rom. 5:11).  

Because of that, we who are unrighteous in ourselves are nevertheless declared righteous before God while still in our sinning state — something called justification: “So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men” (Rom 5:18).

And while Foster says, “the cross was not payment,” Scripture specifically says it was: “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us” (Gal. 3:13).

All good so far?

Now, it’s true there have been deep debates on how this was accomplished in Christ’s work on the cross. I mentioned two above, but others include the retribution, ransom, optional and necessary satisfaction, government, and mystical atonement theories.

The one that I believe is spot-on biblically and rejected by woke theology because it is “cosmic violence,” is the penal substitution theory that says God’s absolute justice has been violated, so a substitution for our sins had to be made by the sinless Son of God. It rests on the biblical foundations of a holy God, divine wrath, real guilt on our side, and the need for atonement and reconciliation.  

In his book, Atonement and the Death of Christ, William Lane Craig defines the substitution theory as “Christ voluntarily suffers the punishment that we justly deserve, thereby satisfying the demands of divine justice so that God can forgive sins without compromising His righteousness.” Sounds right to me.

But it sounds wrong to woke proponents who redefine anger, sin, justice, and love. Once those categories shift, God’s wrath becomes morally unacceptable.

To them, anger equals harm so God cannot be wrathful. Humans are victims, not sinners; therefore, no guilt or judgment exists. God’s Law becomes therapeutic ethics, and any conviction is labeled trauma. Inclusion trumps holiness; therefore, judgment is immoral. Violence is evil (at least, in lip service), so the crucifixion cannot be an atoning event. And lastly, God is only love (redefined), and so wrath is incompatible with His character.

You read through their rationale and rejection of God’s wrath/justice for sin and wonder if the woke have ever read and understood the Old Testament? Or the book of Revelation? Or the end of Jesus’ Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24?

While the woke theologians will call substitutionary atonement a fear-based theology, the fact is the Bible tells us fear has its place in life, that “the wages of sin is death” (Rom 6:23). And that God’s character is one where love and justice are melded together to create the only outcome where God can destroy evil without destroying us in the process.

A rejection of penal substitutionary atonement not only undercuts the eternal justice of God but also undermines the objective reconciliation between God and sinners, the historical and biblical foundation for the Gospel, and the assurance we have in Christ’s sacrificial work.

Speaking on this topic in his commentary on 2 Corinthians, Simon J. Kistemaker writes:

“The question always remained as to why God was willing to overcome his anger toward sin as he reached out to us in love and peace. Now the apostle [Paul] explains that God took his sinless Son and made him the sinbearer in our place. God had his Son pay the death penalty for our sins, so that we might be set free and declared righteous in his sight. Christ redeemed us by taking upon himself the curse that rested on us” (Gal. 3:13).

In the end, if woke theology doesn’t embrace the idea of an angry God and a substitutionary atonement, it’s because they’re interpreting Scripture through their leftist social framework. Furthermore, they misunderstood the character of God and the fact that His attributes are infinite in depth and interwoven — wrath and love being just two of them.

And so, if penal substitution is the correct interpretation of Christ’s atonement, what should we do? We thank God for His substitute and “wait for His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead, that is Jesus, who rescues us from the wrath to come” (1 Thess. 1:10).