Richard Cunningham at New Word Alive from Adrian Warnock on Vimeo.

I interviewed my old friend, Richard, who is one of the main forces behind the event. We spoke about the vision for this conference, and he also revealed that next year Wayne Grudem will be one of the speakers.

God’s word and Men and women’s hearts were made for each other.

Sowing Jesus knew how to sway a crowd. The seed falls on different kinds of soil. In a sense this is the most unsurprising story to a rural community. They know some seed doesn’t grow. Cant have been his most electrifying story on one level. He is sifting the crowd. Jesus does this often, for example when he told the crowd to eat is flesh! Why have we come to this conference? Are you hungry for him? For his word? Or do you just want him to make your problems go away? Crowd euphoria is a fleeting thing. God’s word never leaves us unchanged, it either hardens or bears fruit. Jesus is looking for those with a noble and good heart (v15). Do we hear, retain, persevere and bear a crop? We need a heart that can hear God’s word and receive it. Some reject it. Others receive it and it springs up briefly. Others find it choked by the worries of life. Our initial enthusiasm does not guarantee long term fruitfulness. Jesus says it’s the long-term attitude to my word that counts. Hebrews 3:14 shows that we must persevere to the end to be sure that we have received Christ.

Growing – The seed is so powerful that it will grow in the heart of this kingdom and utterly overwhelm it. By God’s word the kingdom will be established. Growing is happening now. There is preaching and teaching. The seed then spreads to the four corners of the world.

Reaping Revelation 22:6 The river of life will be flowing. The tree of life will bring healing to the nations. The good soil will have eternal benefits having received it persevered and produced fruit.

While I was driving through the night, Richard Cunningham was speaking to the students at New Word Alive. Thanks to the wonders of technology, I can listen to this, and so can you if you pop over to the NWA site and order CDs. I will share some short notes here.

We are told by Paul to act in a certain way in view of God’s mercies. We are not to be those who conform and fit in. It’s not the easy-going lifestyle, but the considered one.

Richard’s 11 year old nephew was recently told he will die. Without hesitation he said to his doctor, “I am not afraid of dying. I have a friend in Jesus. He is going to take me to be with him.” If our life is built on something solid, we will live differently. We offer all we have and are to the Lord.

We cannot start with exhortations. We have to put theology before ethics. The first chapters of Romans show that we are all guilty before God and need his mercy. Our sin is our only contribution to our forgiveness.

Sometimes we find security within the rules. Grace is unflattering and uncomfortable. Some of us are more naturally pleasure-seeking. We need to get off the beach and onto the altar.

Often we think following God will be tough and that he will ruin our lives. If we understand his mercies, how could we think that? God wants us to be those who make the glory of God known throughout the world.

Offering our bodies is first of all a rational and sensible thing. The word “spiritual” there can be translated reasonable or rational. It is not about dividing your lives between spiritual or secular. It is, instead, rather foolish to exchange the real God for worshiping the created. If we have experienced the mercy of God, how can we continue to offer our bodies in slavery in sin?

The full potential of humans is to serve God. It is only when we treasure God that we will offer ourselves to him. We exercise gifts because of the abilities God gives us. Men can have a tendency to be passive. It is only when we are active that we will find the purpose for which we were made.

We don’t serve because of the debtor’s ethic. We wouldn’t say to our wives, “I had no choice; I didn’t want to be in your debt, I felt guilty, so I bought you these flowers.” We serve God because we love him, not for some half-hearted reason. He loved and died for us. How could we do anything other than give him everything back?

God loved us while we were abusing ourselves. Knowing where we are going will drive us to make this life last.

I received the following two articles from the communications director of the UCCF, and they have been kind enough to give me permission to republish them here. The first article is by J. I. Packer, and the second one is by Richard Cunningham, and were originally published in a UCCF magazine.

Penal Substitution Revisited
J. I. Packer
Throughout my 63 years as an evangelical believer, the penal substitutionary understanding of the cross of Christ has been a flashpoint of controversy and division among Protestants. It was so before my time, in the bitter parting of ways between conservative and liberal evangelicals in the Church of England, and between the Inter-Varsity Fellowship (now UCCF) and SCM in the student world. It remains so, as liberalism keeps reinventing itself and luring evangelicals away from their heritage. Since one’s belief about the atonement is bound up with one’s belief about the character of God, the terms of the gospel and the Christian’s inner life, the intensity of the debate is understandable. If one view is right, others are more or less wrong, and the definition of Christianity itself comes to be at stake.

An evangelical theologian, dying, cabled a colleague: ‘I am so thankful for the active obedience (righteousness) of Christ. No hope without it.’ As I grow old, I want to tell everyone who will listen: ‘I am so thankful for the penal substitutionary death of Christ. No hope without it.’ That is where I come from now as I attempt this brief vindication of the best part of the best news that the world has ever heard.

It is impossible to focus the atonement properly until the biblical mode of Trinitarian and incarnational thought about Jesus Christ is embraced. The Trinitarian principle is that the three distinct persons within the divine unity, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, always work inseparably together, as in creation, so in providence and in every aspect of the work of redemption. The incarnational principle is that when the Son took to himself all the powers and capacities for experience that belong to human nature, and began to live through his human body, mind, and identity, his sense of being the Father’s Son was unaffected, and he knew and did his Father’s will, aided by the Spirit, at all times. It was with his own will and his own love mirroring the Father’s, therefore, that he took the place of human sinners exposed to divine judgment and laid down his life as a sacrifice for them, entering fully into the state and experience of death that was due to them. Then he rose from death to reign by the Father’s appointment in the kingdom of God. From his throne he sent the Spirit to induce faith in himself and in the saving work he had done, to communicate forgiveness and pardon, justification and adoption, to the penitent, and to unite all believers to himself to share his risen life in foretaste of the full life of heaven that is to come. Since all this was planned by the holy Three in their eternal solidarity of mutual love, and since the Father’s central purpose in it all was and is to glorify and exalt the Son as Saviour and Head of a new humanity, smartypants notions like “divine child abuse”, as a comment on the cross, are supremely silly, and as irrelevant and wrong as they could possibly be.

As in all the Creator’s interacting with the created order, there is here an element of transcendent mystery, comparable to fog in the distance hanging around a landscape, which the rising sun has effectively cleared for our view. What is stated above is clearly revealed in God’s own witness to himself in the Bible, and so must be given the status of non-negotiable fact.

Again, the atonement cannot be focused properly where the biblical view of God’s justice as one facet of his holiness, and of human willfulness as the root of our racial, communal and personal sinfulness and guilt, is not grasped. Justice, as Aristotle said long ago, is essentially giving everyone their due, and whatever more God’s justice (righteousness) means in the Bible, it certainly starts here, with retribution for wrongdoing. We see this as early as Genesis 3, and as late as Revelation 22:18-19, and consistently in-between. God’s mercy to guilty sinners is framed by his holy hostility (wrath) against their sins.

Human nature is radically twisted into an instinctive yet deliberate and ineradicable habit of God-defying or God-denying self-service, so that God’s requirement of perfect love to himself and others is permanently beyond our reach, and falling short of God’s standard marks our lives every day. What is due to us from God is condemnation and rejection.

The built-in function of the human mind that we call conscience tells everyone, uncomfortably, that when we have misbehaved we ought to suffer for it, and to that extent conscience is truly the voice of God.

Both Testaments, then, confirm that judicial retribution from God awaits those whose sins are not covered by a substitutionary sacrifice: in the Old Testament, the sacrifice of an animal; in the New Testament, the sacrifice of Christ. He, the holy Son of God in sinless human flesh, has endured what Calvin called ‘the pains of a condemned and lost person’ so that we, trusting him as our Saviour and Lord, might receive pardon for the past and a new life in him and with him for the present and future. Tellingly, Paul, having announced ‘the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation (i.e. wrath-quencher) by his blood, to be received by faith’, goes on to say: ‘This was . . . to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus’ (Romans 3:2-26, my emphasis). Just justification — justified justification — through the doing of justice in penal substitution, is integral to the message of the gospel.

Penal substitution, therefore, will not be focused properly till it is recognized that God’s redemptive love must not be conceived — misconceived, rather — as somehow triumphing and displacing God’s retributive justice, as if the Creator-Judge simply decided to let bygones be bygones. The measure of God’s holy love for us is that ‘while we were still sinners, Christ died for us’ and that ‘he . . . did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all’ (Romans 5:8, 8:32). Evidently there was no alternative to paying that price if we were to be saved, so the Son, at the Father’s behest ‘through the eternal Spirit’ (Hebrews 9:14), paid it. Thus God ‘set aside . . . the record of debt that stood against us . . . nailing it to the cross’ (Colossians 2:14). Had we been among the watchers at Calvary, we should have seen, nailed to the cross, Pilate’s notice of Jesus’ alleged crime. But if, by faith, we look back to Calvary from where we now are, what we see is the list of our own unpaid debts of obedience to God, for which Christ paid the penalty in our place. Paul, having himself learned to do this, testified: ‘the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me’ (Galatians 2:20).

This text starts to show us how faith in Christ our penal substitute should be shaping our lives today; which will be my final point for reflection. Thirty years ago I wrote an analysis of insights basic to personal religion that faith in Christ as one’s penal substitute yields. Since I cannot improve on it, I cite it as it stands.

1. God, in Denney’s phrase, ‘condones nothing’, but judges all sin as it deserves, which Scripture affirms, and my conscience confirms, to be right.

2. My sins merit ultimate penal suffering and rejection from God’s presence (conscience also affirms this), and nothing I do can blot them out.
3. The penalty due to me for my sins, whatever it was, was paid for me by Jesus Christ, the Son of God, in his death on the cross.
4. Because this is so, I through faith in him am made ‘the righteousness of God in him’, i.e. I am justified; pardon, acceptance and sonship (to God) become mine.
5. Christ’s death for me is my sole ground of hope before God. ‘If he fulfilled not justice, I must; if he underwent not wrath, I must to eternity’ (John Owen).
6. My faith in Christ is God’s own gift to me, given in virtue of Christ’s death for me: i.e. the cross procured it.
7. Christ’s death for me guarantees my preservation to glory.
8. Christ’s death for me is the measure and pledge of the love of the Father and Son to me.
9. Christ’s death for me calls and constrains me to trust, to worship, to love and to serve.

(Cited from Tyndale Bulletin 25, 1974, pp. 42-43)

A lawyer, having completed his argument, may declare that here he rests his case. I, having surveyed the penal substitutionary sacrifice of Christ afresh, now reaffirm that here I rest my hope. So, I believe, will all truly faithful believers.

In recent years, great strides in biblical theology and contemporary canonical exegesis have brought new precision to our grasp of the Bible’s overall story of how God’s plan to bless Israel, and through Israel the world, came to its climax in and through Christ. But I do not see how it can be denied that each New Testament book, whatever other job it may be doing, has in view, one way or another, Luther’s primary question: ‘How may a weak, perverse and guilty sinner find a gracious God?’; nor can it be denied that real Christianity only really starts when that discovery is made. And to the extent that modern developments, by filling our horizon with the great meta-narrative, distract us from pursuing Luther’s question in personal terms, they hinder as well as help in our appreciation of the gospel.

The Church is and will always be at its healthiest when every Christian can line up with every other Christian to sing P. P. Bliss’s simple words, which really say it all:

Bearing shame and scoffing rude
In my place condemned he stood,
Sealed my pardon with his blood
Hallelujah! What a Saviour!

EXPLANATORY NOTE
Following the unilateral termination of the Word Alive Partnership by Spring Harvest (over the issues of Steve Chalke’s denial of Penal Substitution and his resulting status as a non-speaker at Word Alive) UCCF and Keswick Ministries have formed a new partnership (chaired by Hugh Palmer) to deliver New Word Alive (an all age event) at PW next year with Don Carson, John Piper and Terry Virgo as the main speakers. In the light of this we have asked our Director, Richard Cunningham, to comment on the significance of this doctrine and the stand UCCF has taken on it.

The issue of Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA) can leave some Christians scratching their head wondering whether it is really worth falling out over such a nuanced, forensic-sounding doctrine. The reality (which Jim Packer draws out so magnificently . . . ) is that the Gospel itself is at stake.

PROBLEM FOR GOD
Would God be good if he was merely pained, disappointed, and hurt by our sin? If God is not filled with wrath (a settled righteous indignation) at human sin, how can he also be good, holy, and just?

“Standing with my boots deep in the reeking muck of a Rwandan mass grave where thousands of innocent people have been horribly slaughtered, I have no words, no meaning, no life, no hope—if there is not a God of history and time who is absolutely furious, absolutely burning with anger towards those who took it in their own hands to commit such acts.”

Gary Haugen (Former Director of the United Nations genocide investigation in Rwanda)

God’s primary business is not to dispense forgiveness on fallen human creatures, but to be true to his own Just and Holy character; to demonstrate the righteousness of his sovereign reign and so bring glory and honour to himself. Forgiveness only becomes possible if God in Christ is punished for our sin and thus manages to satisfy (propitiate) God’s wrath towards human wickedness.

PROBLEM FOR US
The unity that we enjoy as confessional evangelicals around the core Evangelical distinctives (such as PSA) is extremely precious. UCCF’s Doctrinal Basis is a wonderful unity document. For we are to be as exclusive as it demands (on the atonement for instance) and to be as inclusive as it allows. The temptation for Classical Evangelicals in such times is to get this the wrong way round and to maximise exclusiveness and minimise inclusiveness. This easily leads us to make too much of our tribal (that is cultural and stylistic) distinctives. Most (though not all) of the differences between confessional evangelicals (be they Anglican or NonConformist, Charismatic or non-Charismatic) are down to vocabulary, style, and culture. By contrast the differences between confessional Evangelicals and pragmatic/liberal Evangelicals (regardless of their other tribal loyalties—NonConformist, Charismatic, etc.) will, in time, become substantive, doctrinal, and (necessarily) ethical. If I do not hold firm to the doctrine of Penal Substitutionary Atonement, what will be the pastoral and ethical implications for my Christian faith?

LICENTIOUSNESS
On the one hand I might conclude that God has wonderfully and mysteriously expiated my sin. But I will wonder how a holy and just God can merely pronounce sin ‘forgiven’ since without the shedding of blood (a violent death) there is no forgiveness of sin (Hebrews 9:22). I may end up concluding that sin is not such a big deal to God and neither should it be for me.

LEGALISM
Alternatively, a denial of PSA will leave me with no assurance that God in Christ has taken my sin, and in exchange has imputed to me Christ’s righteousness. Consequently I will become unsure of my status before God and will do all I can to please him and merit his forgiveness. Liberalism invariably presents itself as balanced, attractive, and relevant. In reality it is death! For it will inevitably lead to either licentiousness or legalism. By contrast Confessional Evangelicalism leads us to a Grace-centred and Grace-motivated gospel:

How much more, then will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God! (Hebrews 9:14)

I find it comforting to remind myself that this is not a new issue for the church. Richard Niebuhr makes the following comment on C19 liberalism:

A God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross.

A PROBLEM SOLVED
But now (Christ) has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. (Hebrews 9:26)

The writer to the Hebrews contrasts the unfinished work of the OT priest (who is forever standing and sacrificing) with the finished work of Christ (who is now seated and waiting for his enemies to be made his footstool.) Hebrews 10:11-14

This is why Christ cried out, “It is finished.” (John 19:30). Not “I am finished.” No, this was a cry of triumph. “Finished” (teleo) is the word you would use having paid the last installment of the mortgage or a student would use it having sat their last exam. IT IS FINISHED! Nothing more to pay, nothing more to do—Finished!

NEW WORD ALIVE
By God’s grace the New Word Alive will get the exclusive/inclusive balance right. It will not be culturally narrow, emotionally clenched, or mean spirited anymore than it will be doctrinally liberal and ‘Open Evangelical’. As soon as I informed Don Carson, John Piper, and Terry Virgo (respectively) about our situation with Word Alive they instinctively recognised that this was a key moment for British Evangelicalism and made space in their over-busy diaries to be with us. We would be thrilled if you and a group from your church came to join us for this significant event as together we seek to serve the church and reach the world with the glorious gospel.

The UCCF has now issued a full statement about the end of Word Alive’s association with Spring Harvest, which I blogged about on Friday. Here is the full text:

UCCF STATEMENT
For Immediate Release
23 April 2007

Response from UCCF to the SPRING HARVEST Decision to End the World Alive Bible Teaching Week After 14 Years

For the past 14 years, the Universities and Colleges Christian Fellowship and Keswick Ministries have been delighted to partner Spring Harvest in organising Word Alive, one of Europe’s top Bible Study weeks with a vibrant student track aimed at young people. Widely recognised, orthodox Bible teaching has been the hallmark of the event.

In 2003, the Revd Steve Chalke, one of the Spring Harvest Event Leadership Team, and a member of their Council of Management (trustees) ,wrote The Lost Message of Jesus. In it, he promoted unorthodox views over the nature of the Atonement, and hit national media headlines over his controversial and graphic description of Penal Substitution.

The Word Alive committee, of which UCCF is a part, believed such views to be contrary to orthodox Biblical teaching, and as such, decided that the Revd Steve Chalke could not teach from a Word Alive platform.

The Evangelical Alliance (EA) held a Theological Forum at which various theologians debated with the Revd Steve Chalke. As a result, that organisation decided to change its constitution to clarify where the EA Council of Management stood on the issue. In May 2006 Spring Harvest advised the leadership of Word Alive that the Revd Steve Chalke was able to sign up to the new and revised EA constitution, and therefore requested he be allowed to preach from the Word Alive platform in 2007. This request was refused as Mr Chalke had publicly confirmed he had not changed his personal theological views.

In September 2006 the Word Alive Committee were called to a meeting by Spring Harvest and told that as they would not include the Revd Steve Chalke, the 14-year partnership was at an end. Spring Harvest said they regretted they were putting a personality ahead of partnership. Spring Harvest announced it would be promoting its own student-based week at Minehead in ‘week one’, resourced by Fusion, of which the Revd Steve Chalke is on the Council of Reference.

Our decision to allow only orthodox Christian teaching from Word Alive platforms, and Spring Harvest’s subsequent decision has caused enormous pain and regret. However, UCCF believes it can no longer work with those whose understanding of the nature of the gospel and the distinctive of the atonement is so different to theirs, and mainstream evangelicals in the UK and across the world.

There comes a point when loyalty to the gospel, as we believe it to be clearly set out in Scripture, and the drive for unity with others can come into conflict, and we have reached that point.

Meanwhile, a new ‘Word Alive’ event, organised jointly by Keswick Ministries and UCCF has been planned for 7-11 April 2008 at Pwllheli, where speakers already confirmed include John Piper, Terry Virgo, and Don Carson. There will be an increased capacity and further details will be released shortly.

Rumours circulating that the break-up of the partnership was down to Word Alive’s refusal to accept women speakers is totally refuted. UCCF regularly has women speakers on its platforms, and it is a matter of public fact that Keswick does too. The key issue is Spring Harvest’s corporate support for one of its own trustees, the Revd Steve Chalke, over Biblical orthodoxy on such a central issue as Atonement.

UPDATE November 2008- Steve Chalke has expressed his views more fully in a chapter in The Atonement Debate, and I have posted a response to this.

____________________

FURTHER UPDATE
Full statements have now been issued by UCCF and Keswick, as well as Pete Broadbent of Spring Harvest, who also made a further statment. N.T. Wright has weighed into the atonement debate offering clear support to Steve Chalke. Also, Dave Bish is doing a great job of collecting blog posts about this into one place.
____________________

This Easter a clear line was drawn in the sand in British Evangelicalism. For years, whenever the word “evangelical” was mentioned, people in the UK would think almost immediately of Spring Harvest — easily the UK’s largest Christian conference. Part of that package has been Word Alive, a distinct all-age event run by UCCF (who are the UK equivalent of the Intervaristy Fellowship) and the Keswick Convention in partnership with Spring Harvest. At the heart of Word Alive has been a separate student track with up to 2,000 students. Beginning in 2008, there will be no more Word Alive at Spring Harvest.

I have seen and heard lots of speculation about the detailed reasons for this parting of the ways, and I do not want to add to that here, but a quick look at what happened during the event this year, and the plans for next year from both halves of the partnership, surely makes the overall reasons behind this abundantly clear to any observer.

Firstly, Richard Cunningham (who incidentally reasserted the UCCF’s absolute commitment to Penal Substitutionary Atonement when I interviewed him eighteen months or so ago) preached very passionately about the cross during the event. The audio of this talk is available to order online, and was well reported by blogger Cat who said the following:

“I noticed that night there was a very strange atmosphere. On one hand there was a striking on our hearts showing us how Holy God is and how unworthy we are; it brought us to worship God and fall to our knees at His majesty. Yet there were some that looked bewildered or looked angry. This was the first time ever that I saw [that] the Cross truly does offend.”

The very next morning came the Radio Four Program by Jeffrey John (NOT to be confused with J. John!) in which he stated that he believed Penal Substitutionary Atonement made God into a psychopath. Bishop Broadbent, the leader of Spring Harvest, quickly issued a statement disagreeing with this.

To most observers, however, there seems to be little difference between being a psychopath and being a cosmic child abuser, as previously stated by Steve Chalke, who Broadbent works very closely with. Whilst Broadbent doesn’t seem to share the views of Chalke, he is obviously willing to work with a broad range of people. Perhaps this was the reason for the way in which Broadbent seemed, to me, to be treading a fine line in his words:

“You cannot read the Old Testament and New Testament . . . and blank out an entirety of language and concept and understanding that means that we are guilty sinners, we need our sins to be paid for, and we need Jesus Christ to die for us. That is what the Creeds say, it is what the Bible says, and you cannot rewrite them. You cannot understand Jesus Christ without understanding Old Testament atonement material . . . Of course, there are some very raw discussions amongst Christians about quite how Jesus died in our place and what that meant and how He suffered for our sins — but to ignore the entirety of the language about atonement and sacrifice and the cross is to nullify the message of what Good Friday and Jesus dying for us is all about. Jesus Christ is sacrificed and He washes away the sins of the whole world and He completes the understanding of Scripture and fulfils it in a completely new way.”

Towards the end of the whole event, in an open meeting for group organizers, Richard Cunningham was asked a direct question about why the partnership is coming to an end. He stated in his reply that Spring Harvest had been the one to take the initiative, and asked UCCF and Keswick to no longer be a part of Spring Harvest. This was because UCCF and Keswick were not willing for Steve Chalke to speak on either the student or all-age platforms at Word Alive. I was not at this event, but since it was an open meeting, what was said is clearly in the public domain — I am obviously more than willing to correct this account if I have been misinformed.

Spring Harvest is understood to be planning a student track, and at least according to an unofficial posting I ran into on Facebook, this could be run in conjunction with Fusion. This link-up would certainly be a likely option for them since Steve Chalke is a member of the Fusion Council of Reference, and both the council of management and leadership team of Spring Harvest. Perhaps not surprisingly, that is one name that does not appear on similar lists for either the UCCF or Keswick.

Meanwhile, next year UCCF and Keswick will launch New Word Alive, a conference at a venue which I am told will have the potential capacity for over 5,000 people in North Wales. This event will be for both families and students, and looks very interesting.

New Word Alive has managed to confirm a fantastic line-up of main preachers: John Piper, Terry Virgo, and Don Carson will all be speaking at the event. Not much wonder that the New Word Alive Facebook group has jumped to almost 900 members already! If they will have me, I may just have to try and go along with my whole family and live-blog, like I did at Together On A Mission 06.

No official statement about this has been released on the websites of either Spring Harvest, UCCF, or Keswick, and all these organizations declined to issue any formal statement when I gave them the opportunity to comment on the contents of this post prior to publication.

Somehow I think we have not heard the end of this.

UPDATE

The UCCF has responded to this article as follows:

“Steve Chalke has made his dislike of penal substitution very clear by likening God’s act of punishing Jesus in our place to a cosmic child abuser. In good conscience, we simply could not allow Steve to teach during the Word Alive week. We’re very sad that after 14 years of fruitful ministry, Spring Harvest has decided to end the Word Alive partnership because we feel unable to shift on this position.”

Adrian: Following on from my interview with Richard Cunningham before Christmas, it is a delight for me to welcome Maurice McCracken who works for uccf:thechristianunions co-ordinating Relay a year long discipleship and training scheme for recent graduates. “Mo” also occasionally blogs here which he was too modest to tell me about (thanks to Bish for the tip off!)

First, welcome to the blog Maurice please could you tell us a little bit about yourself.

Maurice: Thanks for the welcome! I was raised in a fantastic Christian home in Northern Ireland and came to England for university, where I studied law, and later worked in Community Development. My Christian faith really kicked in at university, as it does for so many people, and I grew a passion for teaching people God’s word and especially training other people to do that. This led me to work for UCCF, first as a staff worker with six CUs in the North West of England, and from August 2005 as Relay Co-ordinator. I’m also part of a church leadership team, and I am infamous for my bad taste in cheesy pop music.

Adrian: Can you tell us a bit about your role with UCCF and the role of the Relay workers?

Maurice: Relay is a scheme that we run for recent graduates. It’s tagline is discipleship and training in a student context which just about sums it up! Relay workers spend an academic year with us on a voluntary basis, being discipled and trained in ministry skills, working alongside a CU staff worker, and gaining experience in Christian work by working with CUs. They also spend a significant amount of time in personal study.

I co-ordinate the Relay scheme, which means I am responsible for the Relay Workers training including three residential conferences, and making sure they are supervised properly. I am also in charge of recruitment, and I do a bit of work with CUs as well just where I can help out really.

Adrian: There are lots of options for graduates taking a year to do Christian work. Is there anything distinctive about Relay?

Maurice: Well, there are lots of great schemes out there. Relay has three main emphases. The first is grace we teach and try to model that the life of a Christian servant is rooted in grace, and that it is by trusting grace that God changes us.

Second the Bible. UCCF has always been a Biblio-centric movement and that is reflected clearly in Relay. Much of the training centres on understanding, teaching and applying the Bible, and their ministry experience will involve explaining the Bible at levels appropriate for them personally: giving talks, one to one discipleship, evangelism training small group leaders etc.

Third relationships. Relay is built around a strong, grace-centred discipling relationship between the Relay worker and their staff worker where we seek to see grace modelled and provide training and feedback on the Relay worker’s Bible ministry. Relay workers are always part of a regional or office team too, with the staff and other relay Workers in their area.

Adrian: What kind of people are you looking for to become Relay workers?

Maurice: Anyone who loves God and his Gospel, who is committed to an evangelical Christian faith, who wants to work within UCCF’s ministry model and who is willing to learn.

In terms of personality, church background, gifts and personality, there is no typical Relay worker. I nearly said there is no normal Relay worker there which would probably also be true. Most of the available places would be for someone interested in developing skills in Bible teaching, although we also have several office internships design, media and web for any graduates interested in a year being discipled and also gaining experience in that type of field.

Adrian: Are there particular doctrinal positions that people need to hold to? What about charismatics for example, should they apply? What about those who disagree with penal substitution?

Maurice: UCCF has an evangelical DB as Richard mentioned, so agreeing with penal substitution is part of the deal, yes. Charismatic graduates are very welcome; each year we have a number of staff who help on Relay training conferences, who represent nearly the full variety of views on gift issues that there would be within evangelicalism.

The core text the Relay workers use for doctrine study would take a charismatic line on the gifts issue, but not everyone on staff or Relay would agree with it we can live with that with no problems!

One thing I would say is that Relay is for people who are willing to work within that type of context everything will not be done the way that any individual’s church might do things no matter what type of background they come from. Part of the scheme is about learning to work with and learn from people who agree on essentials the cross, the Bible, evangelism but who may disagree with you on other things. We try to create a safe environment to talk about all that stuff at Relay conferences, in the context of good friendships and shared Gospel convictions.

Adrian: What about people who are committed to a church and want to continue to work in that area. Would it be possible that the UCCF might agree to such a request or is it essential to you that people move to where you want to place them?

Maurice: We would always consider this type of request positively, but it all depends on the opportunities for supervision as we need to have enough staff in a region to supervise Relay workers on the ground. So we’ll try!

Adrian: Can you tell us a little bit about the process people need to go through to apply?

Maurice: People can request an information or application pack at our website. www.uccf.org.uk/relay . This doesn’t commit you to anything, and gives a whole stack of information, plus letters for church leaders, and all the materials needed to apply. You then need to submit the form to UCCF by 28th February. There will be a period for references to be collected and interviews in the potential placement region before appointments are made. The easiest thing is probably for people who are interested to request a pack, and to drop us a line on relay@uccf.org.uk telling us where they are interested in working just to give us an idea of levels of interest. (Ed- please tell them you saw it here!)

Adrian: How do UCCF workers interact with local churches which have a large student work?

Maurice: I have a vested interest in this question, as I am on the leadership team of a church with a large number of students. One of the ways we have begun to think of CUs over the last few years within UCCF is as mission teams and that I think that is a useful model not as students main source of spiritual welfare, but a resource to reach campuses with the Gospel.

UCCF workers will, therefore, always encourage students to be a committed part of a local church, more than just a pew-filler, and to be looking for ways to be plugged in to loving other Christians, serving and learning. Exactly how that relationship works will be pretty dynamic from place to place when I worked across 6 campuses, there were some with several supportive churches, but there were a couple with none at all and so obviously the CU/church relationship varied in those places.

I think that what I am saying is this that as someone who is in church leadership (albeit not full time) and with a strong doctrine of the local church, I feel assured that those I work with in the fellowship and those I am training on Relay are sharing that high view in their encounters with students.

Adrian: What things can local churches do to help facilitate the work of the UCCF?

Maurice: Lots! Chronologically (as such) please train your teenagers to share the Gospel before they get to uni and send them off seeing it as a mission opportunity and encourage them to see the CU as part of that missionary effort.

When you have students in your church well I think for us at my church it has been about trying to release people into that area of ministry and resource them in it in much the same way we do with people in the workplace. That does mean that our students aren’t involved in as much mid-week as our other members, as they are meeting to pray and study the Bible on campus but we try to think of them as missionaries there who we support like our other mission partners.

Churches can do loads of other practical things discipling students who are involved in CU in one-to-one relationships, praying (contact your local staff worker, they would LOVE to come and tell your church about the work of CUs) pastor and teach your students, love them, and keep in touch with the work locally, so students and UCCF staff know that they have an army of supportive and praying Christians behind their mission! Certainly for my church this has meant seeing that for the time that people are undergrads we see less of them, and they are around less to resource our activities as a church but we hope and pray and encourage them that it is a long term investment for the sake of God’s wider church.

Adrian: I’m afraid tha’s all we’ve got time for today, many thanks for joining us.

In todays blog interview Richard makes it very clear that as far as the UK’s Christian Unions are concerned charismatics (especially from newfrontiers) are welcome but those who question the atonement ought to go elsewhere……

Adrian: It is my pleasure to welcome to my blog today the Director of UCCF in the UK, Richard Cunningham. For my American readers, UCCF is equivalent to your Intervarsity Fellowship Richard, it is a pleasure to welcome you, please can you begin by telling us a bit about yourself and how you ended up leading the UCCF?

Richard: I live in north Oxfordshire with my wife and five kids. I’m an ordained Anglican minister and previously worked for St Andrew’s Oxford. I first came across the UCCF as a student in London. I was greatly helped by a UCCF staff worker during a time of profound intellectual doubt about the Christian faith. He introduced me to the writings of Francis Schaeffer and CS Lewis. This not only rescued my faith, but also gave me the confidence to run Agnostics Anonymous courses for my university mates- a number of who were converted.

Following a stint on staff as Evangelism trainer in the 90s I remained hugely interested in the ministry of UCCF and continued leading student missions. But I never imagined I would ever go back to work for UCCF- so was as surprised as anyone when I was made Director in 2004.

Adrian: Richard, how would you describe the state of the Christian Union movement in the UK and worldwide at the moment?

Richard: The UK CUs in the established Universities are for the most part vigorously healthy. Many CUs are still the largest student societies on campus. Some of the newer Universities with multi- site campuses and minimal student accommodation make it harder for the CUs to reach their fellow students.

I have just come from taking meetings in the north of England which were most encouraging: I spoke to a packed lunchtime student gathering in Manchester on the subject of how can you say Jesus is the only way? I also spoke at the Durham University CU Carol service with 2,000 students and lecturers crammed into Durham Cathedral with many signing up for enquirer’s courses. Similarly Exeter Uni hired the main stand of the football ground for their carol service and had about 3000 attending. For the first time in memory the University of Falmouth held a carol service and 200 attended. In other words CUs are wonderfully placed to reach their campuses for Christ.

It is much harder to answer that question for the whole of IFES (International Fellowship of Evangelical Students) of which UCCF is a founding member. The challenges and opportunities across countries and continents vary so massively. Some CUs in Moslem countries are barely viable, whereas The CU in University of Rwanda is 3000 strong and has grown in- spite of most of the CU leaders and IFES staff being murdered in the genocide of 95. The former leader of the Rwandan work was converted as an international student at Bangor Uni through the witness of the CU. He is now vice chair of the truth and reconciliation committee in Rwanda.

Adrian: What do you see as the role of a Christian Union? What is it there for?

Richard: CUs are mission teams, whose team members (gathered from both sending and local churches) spend 3-4 years helping each other to live and speak for Jesus on campus. They are not churches and are not a substitute for churches. But since their members are living and studying together on campus, CUs can quickly become vibrant witnessing communities reaching out to fellow students.

Students have a freedom to set up societies; book college rooms and reach their friends in a way that churches don’t. University authorities are increasingly nervous about religious societies on campus, especially in the wake of 9/11. There is a serious risk to these freedoms now enjoyed if churches start moving their activities onto campus. It is important for both sending and receiving churches to support the CU leaders (with all the obvious limitations of young leadership) with the opportunities that God has given to them.

Adrian: We often hear that many students involved in CU fall away from Christ after graduation. Is this the case?

Richard: I think that the CUs rescue many students who come up to college with the intention of giving up on Church and faith.

Clearly the mobility of a new graduate (job, marriage, location) creates a big opportunity for reinvention. Christians are even more vulnerable in a work context, because they do not have the support of peers in a Christian Union. It is the students who are the most sorted theologically and who nail their colours to the mast (morally and evangelistically) that tend to be the most stable later on.

By contrast those who leave college without clear convictions and theological clarity seem less able to hold on to their faith after graduation. For example I heard last week of a graduate from Manchester who avoided the CU because it seemed too tight theologically. But upon graduating she worked among HIV AIDS patients in South Africa and rapidly came to the conclusion that she could no longer believe in God in the face of all the suffering she was seeing.

Adrian: How should Christian Unions relate to churches?

Richard: UCCF The Christian Unions is a partnership between students, staff and supporters all of whom are encouraged to be committed to a local church. A CU does not have the breadth and depth of age, maturity and gifting to be a substitute for church. A CU does not have the tested maturity of church leadership. CU members are encouraged to seek pastoral oversight and care from their local church and to see CU as a short-term mission community.

Because UCCF has such a high view of local church it is not surprising that a huge proportion of our former staff end up leading churches. The health of many CUs is greatly affected by the presence of lively, Bible teaching churches in the vicinity. Also without church support UCCF would be barely viable.

Adrian: Relationships between CUs and churches are not always so easy- what do you feel are the most common pitfalls and how can we avoid them?

Richard: There are 2 main pitfalls. One is when a CU misunderstands itself and begins to ape a church by putting on more and more meetings which cover everything from how lead worship to how to have a quiet time. This could lead to some students not having enough time to get involved in a local church.

The other is when a local church misunderstands the nature of a CU and criticizes the existence of student led bible study groups or the teaching of the Bible at main meetings. In the most extreme cases they seek to take over the leadership from the students and regard the CU as a place to extend their own church activities.

Now that may appear a little contradictory at first sight. What is important though is for both students and churches to understand the purpose of a CU. The CU is a mission team in the form of a student society. The officers of the CU are obviously students, because it is inappropriate for anyone other than students to be leading a student society.

The CUs are in existence for their non- members, but obviously they cannot be doing wall-to-wall evangelism. They need weekly team times like any other mission society in which they study what the gospel is in order to live it and tell it more clearly. They also need to pray and mutually encourage each other.

It is important that churches allow CUs to be CUs and not seek to dampen their freedom and joy as they do something quite unique and strategic.

Adrian: Christian Unions seem to vary a lot in my experience in their friendliness to differing types of Christian. Should a Christian Union be totally accepting of anyone who claims to be a Christian?

I hope that every CU is friendly to anyone and everyone who comes along. UCCF Christian Unions are evangelical. We seek to unite students from different Christian traditions on the essentials of evangelical belief.

This means that non-evangelicals may feel uncomfortable as we will talk about the uniqueness of Christ or the infallibility of scripture or Christ’s death as a propitiation to a holy God etc. We insist that everyone who serves as a leader in the CU is able to sign our doctrinal basis agreeing to maintain the evangelical standing of the CU.

All evangelicals should feel at home in CU as these evangelical essentials that unify us across the denominations are shared by us all and speak of the wonder of God’s salvation in Christ revealed in Scripture.

Adrian: In the past there has been some CU’s who have not been very accepting of people from charismatic backgrounds. Why do you think that was, and what is being done today to ensure that no longer is the case?

Richard: It is difficult to speak about the past. What I want to be clear about is the present. UCCF wishes to unite all evangelical believers in order to reach the 2 million students in Higher Education, the vast majority of whom know nothing of Jesus. Uniting students in this great task is a joy but can be difficult. The church scene in the UK reflects this. I think that CUs can one of the best examples of evangelical partnership in the UK. In our CUs and on our staff we have Christians from across the evangelical\spectrum.

In the past some Charismatics were insistent on a particular view of the gifts of the Spirit and that all gifts should be practiced in the CU as they are practiced in the local church. Some CUs reflected the evangelical church at the time of the charismatic renewal and became nervous and suspicious.

But that was then- the question for now is how do we ensure Charismatics are accepted in to CUs? The CU needs to be clear about its mission. Uniting students for mission and not being the local church should make CUs accepting of all evangelicals- charismatic or non-Charismatic. Mission drives this unity, based on the great evangelical truths of our faith. People who love the Gospel and the Word of God will be happy in CUs and UCCF whether charismatic or not.

Adrian: I noticed that UCCF as a national body certainly seems to be working with charismatic groups, especially newfrontiers. I understand Terry Virgo recently spoke at your national leaders meeting and is also on your national advisory board. That may be a surprise to some, can you tell me how it came about?

Richard: It is UCCF’s policy to invite keynote speakers and advisors on merit alone. Terry is a world-renowned Bible teacher with a high view of Scripture and believes passionately in proclamation evangelism. The national advisory board should reflect the breath of UCCF so we invite men and women who are recognized in the evangelical world for their maturity and expertise from across the evangelical spectrum.

We have a number of staff and Relay (one year staff) who are very appreciative of the ministry of NFI. It seems to me that, unlike some of the other so- called new churches that seem to be looking for a fresh mandate, NFI are growing rapidly because of their commitment to Scripture and evangelism.

Adrian: How did Terry Virgo go down at the conference?

Richard: His Bible readings were of exceptional quality and unsurprisingly many people (staff and students) felt that what they had heard was life changing. Terry opened up for us the glory and beauty of the Gospel, which drew out a renewed commitment in many.

Adrian: From what you say, charismatics definitely seem to be welcome to work with the UCCF these days, which is a most welcome development. Do you think this is going to be important for the future of the kingdom today?

Richard: This may sound a little grand, but one of the last best hopes for saving British evangelicalism from corrosive tribalism are our university and college CUs. The18 and 19 yr olds flooding into the CUs are tomorrow’s church leaders. They come from a range of church traditions but are easily united (if allowed to) by their desire to stay Christian and reach their friends for Christ.

Their unity is necessarily based around a mere but glorious Christianity. By being a confessional movement, which unites Christians around core Biblical truths we are able to provide a context within which disparate traditions can work together. This has to be good for the future of the British church.

One of my concerns about caricaturing UCCF as anti charismatic (which of course it isn’t) is that CUs can rapidly become politicized. There have been occasions where local charismatic churches have been encouraged to take over existing CU small groups or cells. It is hard to think of any instances where this has not robbed the CU of its unity and evangelistic effectiveness.

Adrian: So does this mean now that for UCCF anything goes? What would your approach be towards those today who are challenging traditional views of the atonement for example? Should CU’s be able to work just as well with them?

Richard: It is not the case that anything goes, neither morally nor doctrinally. We are concerned for godly living and Biblical truth. As I mentioned earlier UCCF is unashamedly confessional, which means that we are as broad as our doctrinal basis allows and only as narrow as it insists. We ask all those who hold office in CUs plus staff and speakers to be able to affirm their belief in the core truths that is the UCCF’s doctrinal basis (DB).

There is a commitment within our DB to Penal substitutionary atonement as a fundamental truth. The origins of UCCF date back to 1919 when a group of students split from the then very large Student Christian Movement because the atonement was not central to SCMs teaching.

For the sake of unity UCCF has flexed (and continues to) culturally and stylistically since these early days. However by Gods grace we will never sell the family silver of core Biblical truth for the sake of unity.

Adrian: Richard, I am sorry but thats all we have time for today. Many, many thanks for joining us. I wish you well in your future ministry…..