Easter comments

Every Christian religious season now seems a reason for the media to run articles of revisionism or criticism of traditional beliefs, coupled with editorials trying to find some universal message in the season that you don't have to be religious to accept. It gets a bit tiring after a decade or so.

This year, the idea of penal substitution has come in for more than its fair share of negative attention. Two clerics (one was nearly a bishop) from the Anglicans criticised what sounded to me like a very unsophisticated version of it. Giles Fraser then gets to write another Guardian comment piece which goes on about how the central message of Easter should be to "embrace freedom". The exact meaning of this is stated in a somewhat confusing way:

For freedom is the lost virtue of the Christian church. Sure, it's easy for Christians to join in the celebrations of Wilberforce and the abolition of the slave trade. It's easy enough to be a radical 200 years after the event. But on many of the issues of the day, the church stands against human freedom. For evangelicals particularly, freedom means licence. From the freedom of the market to the freedom of gay people to marry and adopt children: for too many Christians, freedom is sin. That's why the church has always been obsessed with control.

Is he saying Evangelicals criticise the "freedom of the market"? I thought they were usually accused of being too pro-capitalism. I assume he is sympathetic to gay marriage, though; an idea that has, contrary to penal substitution, about 20 years of tradition behind it.

The irritating thing about these attacks on penal substitution is that they seem rather uncharitable in the sense there is a clear biblical basis for at least something resembling the idea. The Wikipedia entry on it is pretty good, lining up the proponents and critics.

But in the end, the attitude of CS Lewis is, I think, probably right. He wrote in Mere Christianity:

We are told that Christ was killed for us, that His death has washed out our sins, and that by dying He disabled death itself. That is the formula. That is Christianity. That is what has to be believed. Any theories we build up as to how Christ's death did all this are, in my view, quite secondary: mere plans or diagrams to be left alone if they do not help us, and, even if they do help us, not to be confused with the thing itself. All the same, some of these theories are worth looking at.