On Greed

"... greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right, greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind. And greed, you mark my words, will not only save Teldar Paper, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA."

This weekend I finally saw the movie Wall Street. I've been wanting to see this film because I knew that it is both critically acclaimed and culturally important. [For Christian men reading this blog who are trying to avoid "lust of the eyes," I must point out that in the unedited version of this movie there is one scene of nudity about twenty minutes in and another sex scene later in the film- thankfully, I was forewarned about these scenes and by God's grace I was able to flip the channel to miss them, which I would encourage others to do as well if you choose to watch it.] The cultural importance of this movie comes, in large part, due to the philosophical outlook of the character Gordon Gekko, which is best summarized in the quote above. Though he is supposed to be the villain- the Mephistopheles character- of the film, Gekko has been an inspiration to many a businessman in the 20+ years following Wall Street's release. Both Michael Douglas, who won an Academy Award for "Best Actor" for playing Gordon Gekko, and Wall Street's screenwriter, Stanley Weiser, have said that they've been approached by numerous people who have told them they became stockbrokers because they wanted to be like Gordon Gekko. The motto, "Greed is good," along with a Gekko-like disregard for business ethics, has certainly helped to lead to our present financial crisis.

But "greed," which the Bible defines as "the love of money," is not something that has only impacted business-class elites: it has infected the thought processes of common folks in the pews of our churches as well. For while most church-goers probably don't spend much time dreaming of Porsches, piles of cash, and penthouses on Park Avenue, we do tend to long for the comfort, convenience, and confidence that comes from having a nice, normal lifestyle with a good bit of money saved up for a rainy day. In short, we tend to desire 'the good things in life'- and this desire, if not constantly placed in submission to the gospel, will threaten our commitment to impact the world for Jesus Christ. If we are not very careful, our small-scale greed will keep us from giving sacrificially and going as we have opportunity in order that those who have not heard of Jesus may learn of Him and trust in Him.

In a recent chapel service at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Dr. Russell Moore gave the following statement on greed within "modern evangelical Christianity," specifically focused on the threat that greed poses to churches of the Southern Baptist Convention:

"Modern evangelical Christianity is a mass conspiracy to sell each other stuff... and we are shocked and surprised when the people that we have been discipling according to their appetites are not able to overcome their appetites with the gospel. It's because we've given them a gospel of the appetites since they were two years old... It will not be hyper-Calvinism that destroys the Southern Baptist Convention: it will be hyper-capitalism that destroys the Southern Baptist Convention. When we in our churches and in our families and in our homes have a craving to be normal, have a craving to be economically viable, have a craving to be seen and to be respected and just to be 'regular,' we are walking in a way of Esau that will destroy you."

In light of the thoughts above, I would like to offer the following adaptation of Gordon Gekko's [in]famous speech:

"Greed ('love of money' is the biblical word) is bad. Greed is wrong. In the long term, greed never works (Luke 12:16-21). Greed obscures proper priorities, cuts through relationships, and is consistent with a worldview based on Darwinistic evolution rather than biblical Christianity. Greed, in all of its forms; greed for life (1 John 2:16), for money (Matthew 6:24), for love (2 Samuel 13), knowledge (Genesis 2:16-17; 3) has marked the downfall of mankind. And only the Spirit of God, changing our greedy hearts and granting the love of Christ, will save us as individuals and as a nation."

Penal Substitutionary Atonement: Critique of a Critique (Part 8)

Again, from Green & Baker's fifth paragraph against Charles Hodge's presentation of penal substitutionary atonement:

The weakness of forcing all atonement thinking into the mold of one image became especially apparent when Hodge attempted to explain victory over Satan and the power of sin in terms of penal substitution. In contrast with the tight logical arguments of other sections, in these it appeared he was trying to force a square peg into a round hole.

Hodge explains victory over Satan and the power of sin in a section titled "Doctrine of some of the Fathers." In this section, Hodge writes:

1. That man by sin became subject to the penalty of the divine law.

2. That Satan has the office of inflicting that penalty in so far as he is allowed to torment and degrade the children of men.

3. That Christ by his death having satisfied the penalty of the law, of course has delivered us from the power of Satan.

This appears to be neither a 'loose argument' or an attempt "to force a square peg into a round hole." Of course, since Green & Baker's attack of Hodge's presentation at this point consists simply of assertions with no arguments offered, they do not open the way for dialogue about any specific points to which they may object.

Penal Substitutionary Atonement: Critique of a Critique (Part 7)

Again, from Green & Baker's fifth paragraph against Charles Hodge's presentation of penal substitutionary atonement:

...the reality is that in may societies- at the time Hodge lived, and even more so today- people have different concepts of justice, so that for them penal substitution is simply unintelligible.

The above statement is in keeping with a criticism that Green & Baker make throughout their book- that the concept of penal substitutionary atonement is missiologically deficient because it is not understandable by people in other cultures.

This criticism is contradicted, however, by the experience of one of the authors recorded on page 140 of Recovering the Scandal of the Cross. The author recounts a situation in which he spoke to "a group of indigenous pastors in Panama." In response to the question of "why Jesus died on the cross," these pastors responded with an answer that (as the author himself claims), "communicate[d] the heart of the penal substitution model of the atonement." The author then comments, "the basic ideas of this model can be communicated even to children."

If the author's anecdote and comment are true, then how can he claim an objection to penal substitution on the basis that it is "simply unintelligible" to people of other cultures? Obviously, they can be led to understand the idea that Jesus died in our place to pay the penalty for our sins.

Also, though the idea that "people have different concepts of justice" is certainly true, should gospel ministers not seek to teach people the biblical concept of justice and then to explain the atonement in light of that concept, rather than to formulate a "model" of the atonement based on understandings of justice that have not been influenced by biblical teaching?

Penal Substitutionary Atonement: Critique of a Critique (Part 6)

Green & Baker begin their fifth paragraph of their section assessing Charles Hodges' presentation of penal substitutionary atonement with the following accusation:

We could also mention that because of the singular focus on penal satisfaction, Jesus' resurrection is not really necessary according to this model.

After the sentence above, Green & Baker move on to other accusations. At this point Green & Baker fail to provide documentation by way of any kind of interaction with Hodges' writings (or the writings of any other person who has held to penal substitutionary atonement) that would serve to demonstrate a "singular focus on penal satisfaction" of such a nature that would exclude the necessity of the resurrection for atonement. I would like to counter their simple accusation with a simple denial. Charles Hodge (and others who take a similar view of the atonement) are not blinded to the necessity of the resurrection.

But unlike Green & Baker's accusation, the "simple denial" stated above can be supported by an argument from the relevant source material.

Hodge, in his Systematic Theology, includes fourteen chapters under the major heading "Soteriology;" these chapters cover a range of topics. Two chapters of "Soteriology" in Hodges' Systematic ("Intercession of Christ" and "The Exaltation of Christ") are specifically focused on Christ in His resurrection and post-resurrection existence. Several other chapters include consideration of the resurrection and Christ's work post-resurrection as well (for example, each of Hodges' three chapters on the offices of Christ include consideration of how these offices are still being performed by Christ in His exalted state- this post-resurrection work of Christ is presented as "really necessary" for atonement).

In 1 Corinthians 2:2 the Apostle Paul writes, "For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified" (NASB). The Apostle refers to his gospel preaching as "the word of the cross." Because of statements like these, an opponent of Paul could easily charge, 'Because of his singular focus on the cross, the resurrection is not really necessary according to this model.' But such an accusation would ignore the rest of Paul's teaching. Green & Baker have made a similar mistake in their accusation against penal substitution.