There are more than 33000 different Christian denominations. Each with their own specific interpretation of the bible and of what the truth is. This has obviously caused major splits in Christianity and divided and alienated many people, not to mention scar the image of Christianity.
Even as I grew in the faith, many contrasting viewpoints were presented by different people, some I accepted and some I rejected and others and completely withstood and would fight against.
A while ago I came across a post where believers were arguing and discussing two opposing views on the cross. The one group were holding the view of penal substitution and the others were against that. Penal substitution is basically the doctrine where we believe that Jesus was punished by God for our sins, in a legal sense to get us off the hook. God had to punish someone for our sins, and in a sense required “blood” to be spilled to release forgiveness. And so Jesus took our place and was punished by God in our stead.
The other viewpoint is that it was not God that required blood to be spilled, but us as humanity. That the cross of Jesus was not God punishing Jesus on our behalf but rather Jesus going into the depths of our own sin, sickness, death and condemnation and taking it upon himself on our behalf. No punishment from God intended or needed.
While both of these points of view have merits and scriptural support, which one is right? The idea of penal substitution is a belief that has come a long way through history. A few centuries ago where justice and punishment for crimes were deeply ingrained into the consciousness of people, this idea would have made a lot of sense, would have been understood well and would set many people free from a sin consciousness. The idea of Jesus taking our death and sin upon himself without the punishment of God, would not have been understood or received as well by that same group of people, but would be much better received by people who did not have a background of liberation through justice per se.
I believe that the time of the law under Moses was a necessary pre-cursor to the cross. God had to meet sinful humanity where they were at, at a primitive spiritual understanding of the divine, and slowly walk with them through the ages of the law, and so doing, progressively reveal Himself to them until the fullness of Christ. The lamb of God was in fact slain before the foundation of the world but was only revealed at the right time…
What I’m trying to say is that what if the truth is both relative and absolute? What if God works with humanity’s understanding, albeit incomplete and obscured by our own sinfulness and blindness, to make the light of his love and ultimate truth still shine forth in a specific place and time in our lives? So what if both viewpoints earlier mentioned are correct. They are correct in the sense that God succeeded in liberating us from bondages through those doctrines. God hits a straight shot with a crooked club. He meets us were we are at and desires to liberate us from that which binds and blinds us at any cost! If you were liberated by the doctrine of penal substitution, wonderful! If you were liberated and given more freedom towards God by the other viewpoint, wonderful and hallelujah!
At the end of the day, God’s truth is not about which doctrine or interpretation of the scripture is the absolute correct one, but God’s truth is rather the unveiling of Himself as the personal liberator and as pure love and as The Truth. That is why 2 seeming opposing doctrines, both of which have their liberating qualities can both be true and bring us to this greater truth. The problem arises where we isolate our viewpoint or “smaller truth” and start to oppose everything that does not hold to that which liberated us, while not understanding that those you are opposing were liberated by their doctrine.
We have to see that truth is not a doctrine but a connection the giver of life himself, Jesus Christ. He himself is the final and authoritative Word of God. We must realise that doctrines taught to us, received by us unto liberation are not the final truth and will bring us step by step closer to the Word Himself. So after diving deep into the limited freedom that our doctrine has provided us with, we have to stand back and see that this journey doesn’t stop with an idea or a doctrine. The liberation doesn’t stop with one belief or understanding, our doctrines and we ourselves have to evolve and adapt as God progressively leads us to a better understanding of Himself through the Holy Spirit and scripture.
What if God deliberately included seeming contradictory points of view to capture the attention of as many possible, on both sides of the fence? (I am not referring here to selfish or deliberate evil interpretations.) What if we can also say of God, “I became all things to all men so that I might win some” as Paul said? God is love and desires to liberate us and show His love to us at the place and understanding we are at. Let’s fully receive what the Holy Spirit reveals in His time, while not holding too tightly, defending or opposing doctrines and ideas. Let us rather see them as stepping stones given in their time and place by God, to liberate us and bring us into a more spacious understanding of His nature with each new revelation.