Week 6: Chapter 6 — The Cross: Cosmic Child Abuse or the Greatest Act of Love?

1.Childers introduces the progressive critique of penal substitutionary atonement — particularly the charge, associated with theologians like Steve Chalke, that the idea of God punishing His Son constitutes 'cosmic child abuse.' How does she respond to this charge? What do you make of her response?

2.She explains that the doctrine of penal substitution — the idea that Christ took the punishment our sins deserved — is not the only atonement theory in Christian history, but argues it is the one most thoroughly grounded in Scripture. What is the difference between rejecting penal substitution outright and holding it alongside other complementary views of the atonement?

3.Childers points out that progressive Christianity often favors the 'moral influence' view of the atonement — the idea that the cross primarily demonstrates God's love and inspires us to love likewise — while downplaying or denying the idea that sin required a penalty to be paid. What is valuable about the moral influence view? What is missing from it if it stands alone?