But we need to understand properly what is meant by “rejection of a God of anger”. Now of course most parents get angry with their children at times, but they also generally recognise that anger as something wrong, even sinful. A clear distinction needs to be made here which is not always made when God is the agent. A human parent is right and justified (according to popular understanding and, I think, according to the Bible) in strongly warning and reprimanding a child, and in punishing the child in an appropriate way proportionate to the offence (opinions differ on how far this should go). But they are not justified in losing their temper or punishing the child in an immoderate way based on anger rather than proportionality. Parents recognise that to do the latter, uncontrolled rage, is unjust and sinful. And the words “anger” and “wrath” are usually used for this uncontrolled rage. So when Bible teachers talk about the anger or wrath of God, most people think they are saying that God goes into an uncontrolled rage about sin, throwing around thunderbolts (but not very accurately, as in the alleged York Minster incident) and arbitrarily condemning people to eternal punishment for minor transgressions. This is not of course what is meant in the Bible by the wrath of God, and I cannot imagine how this would be consistent with the love of God. But because of such misunderstandings, often not clearly corrected, many people reject the whole concept of the wrath of God. I could almost say that I do. I accept that there is a biblical concept of he orge tou theou, translated “the wrath of God”, but I really don’t know what it means, if it means more than that God has a negative attitude towards sin. If someone can help me to find out, I would be very grateful!

I also think denial of PS correlates pretty highly with rejection of a God of anger. My rule of thumb is this: if one cannot imagine how love implies anger, at least for a time, then one does not really know what love is, and hence one does not know God either.

By God’s grace, of course, things aren’t so bad in practice. I know many people who cannot imagine God except as a warm fuzzy, but who, thank goodness, get angry with their own children when they step out of bounds. By God’s grace, people are contradictory. By God’s grace and mercy.

To read some of the defenders of PS’s views such as Adrian’s or PFOT’s, it seems like they think a denial of PS amounts to a rejection of the fundamental tenants and doctrines of Christianity, and terrible practical consequences.

In reality, PS is not a consequential doctrine and I have met people who didn’t believe PS and yet whose Christianity and life were perfectly in tact. They believed in the realness of God’s wrath against sin, in salvation by grace alone through faith alone, in a loving God who forgives sin, in a Christ who on the cross defeated the devil, and who calls us to follow him as Lord and live transformed lives.

Now you could argue that these people’s theology is not 100% accurate or 100% biblical (but who would truly claim that for themselves?), but it seems off-base to take the view that their theology or lives are sub-Christian or that severe theological or practical consequences have resulted from their complete rejection of PS.

In this way, I am unable to find any negative consequences of a denial of PS. Hence, not only does PS seem to me to be not “central” to Christianity, it can even be completely denied without affecting any other doctrines or practices of our faith.