In this clip I tell Rob Bell that because he has a very different approach to the Bible, it is hard to accept him as an Evangelical.  I also explain that the main reason for the anger of many evangelicals is that we have learned to expect and to a certain extent accept this kind of teaching from others outside the evangelical movement but within the broader Christian movement.  Surely Bell is just another neo-liberal just like Steve Chalke. What is hard to accept is someone who we thought of as “one of us” demonstrating he is no longer one of us:

The battle lines continue to be clearly drawn despite the best efforts to be “charitable” to both sides by those who try to occupy the middle ground. In an outrageous newspaper article which only cites one Bible verse and even that out of context, Giles Fraser declares “What vicious God would demand Jesus sacrificed for our sins? We should ditch this view of Easter”

I am not surprised by the strong language used by the opponents of the view of the cross generally called “penal substitutionary atonement” but understood by millions of children simply as “Jesus died to be punished for our sin.” If millions of Christians are as wrong as Fraser believes then no wonder he would speak the way he does.

Fraser does not grapple with the issues of the seriousness of sin, of the hundreds of mentions of the wrath of God in Scripture, or of the just requirement that sin should be punished. In short the gospel is removed. As usual the alternative explanation of what happened on the cross is not at all clear. These vague descriptions attempt to remove the very offence of the cross which Paul describes as “Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles” (1 Corinthians 1:18)

To be honest this Easter I am not angry at Fraser, nor am I angry with Steve Chalke (see my posts on the Atonement Debate). At least these people are clear about what they believe and understand. No, the people I am angry with this year are the ones in the Evangelical hierarchy who want to brush these debates to one side in the name of “unity.” There can be no real unity between those who believe that to declare Jesus was punished for us is “cosmic child abuse” and those who believe it is the most precious truth of the Bible. One side of this debate has to be wrong, and badly wrong. They cannot both be right; even N.T. Wright cannot perform such theological magic! The minute anyone tries to make this truth a debatable matter over which evangelicals can legitimately disagree is the moment they lose the right to call themselves evangelical at all in my opinion.

One of the joys of last weeks New Word Alive event was that this debate was totally unnecessary there. The main thing that held the speakers together was that they all believed this was the essential center of the gospel. You can read more about this in my Atonement series.

Where do YOU stand?

This is the last in my short series on Steve Chalke and The Atonement Debate. The previous posts in this series can be found by clicking on the links below:

• Update on Steve Chalke and The Atonement Debate
• Steve Chalke Confirms He Does Not Believe in Penal Substitution
• Steve Chalke Argues Against Penal Substitutionary Atonement
• Steve Chalke and Neglect of the Resurrection

In his chapter of the book, The Atonement Debate, Steve Chalke continues with a classic argument from silence. He claims that Jesus did not teach this doctrine himself and therefore it is questionable. He also argues that before Jesus’ death he would not have had any gospel message to share if PSA is true. The second aspect of this is easy to dispatch since it betrays a very linear view of time. Romans 3 makes clear that it was Jesus’ death that enabled God to overlook sins committed beforehand. In addition, I have often wondered what Chalke believes about hell. Jesus teaches a lot about hell, and a number of his parables refer to eternal suffering. Surely he is describing the problem he is about to solve in doing this. Also, at the climax of his ministry the necessity of his death is very clear to Jesus, and his words describing it as a cup he must drink are poignant. If PSA is not true, it is difficult to see how Jesus’ death was so absolutely necessary. In any case, Jesus did not have to directly teach this doctrine in order for it to be true.

Chalke tries to negate concepts of God’s anger by essentially claiming that God is defined as love, and that fact trumps any mention of God as a God of wrath and anger and presumably holiness. He then devotes an entire section to the cultural implications of PSA, which he says plays into notions of violence and “might is right,” from which the rest of the world is moving away. He also claims it is too individualistic. In fact, in this section he seems to be in danger of removing altogether the importance of the individual’s relationship with God. There is even a statement that he does not like the notion that someone can believe they are saved in an instant, claiming that “separates salvation from discipleship” (page 42). It is vital for us to separate salvation from discipleship, or legalism and justification by works is the result. We do not live good lives in order to be saved. I have long been suspicious that removing the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement inevitably weakens our belief that it is Jesus who saves us in favor of the notion that we have to do something in order to earn our way to heaven. Without fully expressing this, Chalke certainly seems to be implying it. He does not clearly elucidate his views on justification here, however, so I need to be careful, but remain very curious about the implications of what he is saying.

Finally, and perhaps most helpfully, in his closing section Chalke explains what he has put in the place of PSA. Basically he believes in the Christus Victor model whereby it is the victory won by the death and resurrection of Jesus that is key to our salvation. But before he gets there, he makes a clear statement about attempts to “soften” PSA, some of which he believes are even present in The Atonement Debate, to which he is a contributor.

“Since my book was published, and in the serious theological debate that has followed it, some have sought to readdress their definition of penal substitution. I have witnessed various attempts to redraw, redefine, recast, remodel, and rehabilitate the theory as “not really as violent and retributive a concept as The Lost Message of Jesus suggested.” But the problem is simply this: this is not how the situation is perceived either within or beyond the church. So, whilst I applaud these attempts to manufacture a kind of “penal substitution theory lite”—some of which will, no doubt, be presented in other contributions to this book—in my view, what we need is not a reworking but a renunciation” (page 42).

Chalke and I do agree on at least one thing. PSA should not be softened. We should either reject it completely as he is calling for, or, as many millions have, accept it as a precious truth despite all its shocking gruesomeness.

If you would like more information about the atonement, I would recommend the book Pierced for Our Transgressions, or you could read through my previous atonement series in the links found in the following posts from my bog,“Atonement Wars” and “More Atonement Wars.”

In his arguments against penal substitutionary atonement (PSA), Chalke parodies what its advocates believe, claiming that, according to those who hold to PSA,

. . .it is Jesus’ death alone that becomes our “good news.” This approach reduces the whole gospel to a single sentence: “God is no longer angry with us because Jesus died in our place.” Indeed, that is exactly why evangelistic presentations based on penal substitution often do not even bother to mention the resurrection; for them it serves no purpose in the story of salvation (page 39).

We need not accept the accuracy of Chalke’s parody to be stung by its application, at least in part. It is a fact that at times evangelicals neglect to talk about the resurrection and other aspects of what the cross accomplished for us. In fact, Christians should believe that the gospel is about both the death and resurrection of Jesus, and that the work of Christ is about more than only satisfying God’s wrath. For starters, regeneration requires something to be done to us right here and now, and surely our gospel presentations need to explain this. And it is important to stress that there are other aspects of the atonement itself, and in this Mark Driscoll has served us well in his book, Death By Love, which outlines in letters to church members the different aspects of what the cross accomplished.

If Chalke was merely calling for us to remember to emphasize all the aspects of what Jesus accomplished for us, then I would say Amen! to that. Indeed, it was in part because of my own study of all these issues, which was in turn prompted by the Steve Chalke controversy, that I began to feel compelled to write about the resurrection. So perhaps in some sense this whole argument is the background within which the idea for my book, provisionally entitled The Resurrection Empowered Life, arose.

The key thing here is—even if we acknowledge some neglect of other aspects of Christ’s work for us—that is no reason to deny the truth of Jesus’ wrath-absorbing death on the cross. We should heed Chalke’s calls to look at everything Jesus has accomplished for us, but ignore his desire that we reject any notion that he was punished for us. I will continue to examine Chalke’s reasons for his rejection of PSA tomorrow.

In his chapter in the recent book The Atonement Debate, Steve Chalke begins to argue against penal substitution (PSA). He starts in a surprising, and to me, a deeply concerning way. One of my major concerns about this whole debate is what a rejection of PSA does to our view of the Bible. The concept of God’s wrath is very prominent in the Bible, culminating in the famous dilemma of Romans 3 where Paul essentially asks how can God be both JUST and yet FORGIVE our sin. In the context of Romans, to me that answer is simple—because Jesus took away that wrath and bore our punishment.

Chalke sidesteps the issue of the wrath of God by attempting to remove the issue of the sacrifices of the Old Testament from the discussion by claiming:

“The emphasis on Yahweh’s apparent appetite for continuous appeasement through blood sacrifice, present within some Pentateuchal texts, is to be understood in the light of later prophetic writings as a reflection of the worship practices of the pagan cults of the nations that surrounded the people of Israel. However, the story of Israel’s salvation is the story of her journey away from these primal practices towards a new and more enlightened understanding by way of Yahweh’s self-revelation.” (page 38, The Atonement Debate)

This quote is simply breathtaking coming as it does from the pen of a professed evangelical. First of all, it seems that Chalke takes a very different view of Scripture to that of the majority of evangelicals. The books of Moses are not to be contradicted by later revelation! These sacrifices were demanded by the actual audible voice of God recorded infallibly by Moses. Chalke’s comments only make sense if he doesn’t believe that the Pentateuch is actually God’s Word. Moses records that God did not merely “accommodate himself” to the local culture; he actively commanded sacrifice!

Of course it’s not just the Pentateuch with which Chalke’s comments seem to disagree. In his attempt to separate what Jesus did on the cross from biblical notions of sacrifice, one has to wonder what he would make of the book of Hebrews. On page after page the writer to the Hebrews directly connects Jesus’ death with that of the lambs and goats of the Old Testament sacrifices. Hebrews 9:22 says, “Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins” and clearly declares of Jesus in verse 26, “He has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.”

We can’t just airbrush out of the Bible the teaching that it is a wrath-removing bloody sacrifice for sin that is absolutely necessary in order that we can be saved. In his comments on the Pentateuch, Chalke seems to imply that he does not believe those passages to be truly God’s infallible Word, or at least he believes that those passages were contradicted later on. Would he view Hebrews in the same way? We will continue to look at Chalke’s reasons for rejecting PSA tomorrow.

I do want to thank Steve Chalke for the honesty and openness in his contribution to the recent book, The Atonement Debate. He is very bold, and explains his position with far more clarity than I feel he has done before. Reading his chapter was worthwhile as there is much confusion about what Chalke really believes. Indeed, many people, including N. T. Wright, have gone so far as to make pronouncements about what they are sure Chalke believes. But in this book we find the answer to the question in his own words—What does Steve Chalke now think about penal substitution?

Firstly, he has not changed his mind about the appropriateness of his original use of the “cosmic child abuse” language which many found offensive. He says:

“Though the sheer bluntness of my imagery shocked some, I contend that, in truth, it represents nothing more than a stark unmasking of what I understand to be the violent, pre-Christian thinking behind the popular theory of penal substitutionary atonement. Thus, whilst having great respect for many of those who hold what, I readily concede, is currently regarded as orthodoxy within modern evangelicalism, I will attempt to set out through this essay why I believe it to be biblically, culturally, and pastorally deficient and even dangerous” (page 35).

One of the other key questions is this: Was N. T. Wright right to say that Chalke holds to a form of penal substitution that is similar to Wright’s own position? Here Chalke is very clear. He acknowledges that he does hold a “deep resonance” (page 35) with Wright’s position. But he claims that both his own and Wright’s understanding of the way in which the cross saves us is “so far removed from what is commonly taught” (page 35) that he does not like to use the word “penal” as representing his own position.

Wright, it seems, is stuck somewhat in the middle of this. Do Chalke and Wright really agree as much as they both think they do? Is Chalke right to say that Wright’s view, which the prof calls a form of PSA, is actually not really PSA at all? To be honest, sometimes Wright can be hard to fathom and it takes great patience to dissect him fully in such a manner as John Piper did over Wright’s view of justification. But Wright is not the subject of this post; instead, we are looking at Chalke’s own position.

Chalke agrees with Wright’s assessment of the book Pierced For Our Transgressions (PFOT) as “deeply, profoundly, and disturbingly unbiblical” which, since it is a book upholding PSA in a clear and strong way, makes any claim that either Wright or Chalke actually do believe in PSA quite hard to stomach. [In my view, incidentally, PFOT is probably the single best book to read if you want to understand PSA more fully.] Chalke then goes on to explain why he does not believe in PSA as almost everyone would define it. Join me tomorrow as I interact with the arguments he uses.

Somehow I missed a book published earlier this year by Zondervan called The Atonement Debate. The book was described to me as a “cool-headed” approach to the whole debate on penal substitutionary atonement (PSA) that has been raging in evangelicalism since Steve Chalke popularized attempts to dismiss it as a form of “cosmic child abuse.” It is essentially an edited and expanded publication of some papers from a theological debate which took place under the auspices of the Evangelical Alliance and the London School of Theology.

To be honest, when I heard this book was going to be “cool-headed” I was already concerned about it. I’m not sure the atonement is a subject that it’s possible to be terribly cool about. That’s because another word for cool is lukewarm. Jesus hates us to be lukewarm about crucial issues, even threatening to spit the lukewarm from his mouth (Revelation 3). I much prefer interacting with someone who is either hot or cold about important issues like this.

The truth is, there could scarcely be a more important subject. On the one side are people like Chalke who genuinely believe that many evangelicals today are teaching a barbaric pre-Christian lie that is destroying the Church’s witness. On the other hand are those of us who believe that if we were to deny that Jesus took the punishment that was due us for our sin, turning aside the wrath of God by bearing it in himself, quite simply there would be no gospel left.

I can’t see how people who really believe either of those two positions can just agree to disagree and work together as fellow evangelicals. One group must be wrong. Whichever group is right are also clearly quite correct to be very concerned about the opposite group who are, by their false teaching, distorting the gospel and preventing people from coming to a true knowledge of what Jesus has done for them. There are some issues on which we can compromise. This is not one of them.

Accordingly, the first chapter, which tried to set the scene, concerned me greatly. It was written by a believer in PSA who acknowledged that the crafters of the UK Evangelical Alliance’s Statement of Faith had clearly intended to include PSA in that statement. Minutes of the meetings and the living memory of those survivors failed to explain why, in the 1970’s, the word “penal” had been dropped from early drafts of the statement. The writer seemed anxious to stress, however, that in his view it would have been wrong to insert the word penal back into the statement in its most recent revision as that would have been seen as targeting an individual. To be honest, I find such a reluctance baffling. I believe that clarity is exactly what is needed in this debate. Can people really work together in an organization with such diametrically opposed views as I have outlined above?

For some reason it fell to me to become more involved in the debate that had been ongoing within UK evangelicalism than I ever expected. It was a great surprise to me to find myself in the position where I felt obliged to break the story that the separation of Spring Harvest and Word Alive had not been entirely amicable. What soon became clear was that this was not only an argument between Chalke and those who held to PSA. Almost more importantly, there was a disagreement between those who said that they hold to PSA about what should be done when a leading member of many evangelical organizations like Steve Chalke criticized their prevailing teaching so strongly. Many plead, “Can’t we just all get along and agree to disagree?” For more information about the controversy please see the links found in the following posts from my blog “Atonement Wars” and “More Atonement Wars.”

It would seem that The Atonement Debate is published with a desire to help evangelicals understand the debate and then move on from it. Indeed, the tone of most of the papers is conciliatory, and I suspect that one could easily come away after reading it wondering what all the fuss is about. I had assumed that Steve Chalke’s relative silence on the issue meant that he too had come to the conclusion that this didn’t really matter as much as both his original rhetoric and that of his detractors had led one to believe. I couldn’t have been more wrong, as we will see tomorrow when I continue to blog on this subject.

In a sign of just how many preachers read this blog, so far this year the sixth most read post on my blog is a Mother’s Day sermon entitled “Comfort Like a Mother” that I preached earlier in the year.

At number 5 is my initial post on the Steve Chalke controversy. There are several updates to this issue listed on that page. My invitation to Steve to come on this blog or issue a statement clarifying what he believes about penal substitution remains open, but I doubt very much he will ever take me up on this, sadly.

No. 5 on the list of most-read posts on this blog appeared on November 21, 2004. I felt like a lonely figure back in 2004 with my strong criticism of Steve Chalke’s views on the atonement. I argued that his words were close to blasphemy at the time. John Piper would subsequently accuse Chalke directly of blaspheming, and Wayne Grudem would first agree, then modify his position to something similar to what I had said back in 2004.

Many questions remain unanswered about this whole controversy, and I remain open to Steve coming on the blog and explaining his current position more fully to us, or indeed to quoting any clarification comments he wants to make elsewhere. Sadly, to date he has declined my repeated invitations to speak further about this controversy.

Another closely related post that was also very popular was a post which explained how Brian McLaren had supported Steve Chalke.

UPDATE #1
Controversy over Steve Chalke and the atonement continues to rage, and according to reports, may have been involved in the recent split between Spring Harvest and Word Alive.

John Piper also responded directly to Steve Chalke as follows:

“One of the most infamous and tragic paragraphs written by a church leader in the last several years heaps scorn on one of the most precious truths of the atonement: Christ’s bearing our guilt and God’s wrath . . .

With one cynical stroke of the pen, the triumph of God’s love over God’s wrath in the death of his beloved Son is blasphemed, while other church leaders write glowing blurbs on the flaps of his book. But God is not mocked. His word stands firm and clear and merciful to those who will embrace it.”

ORIGINAL POST
It doesn’t happen often, but the EA has issued a statement critical of a well-known UK Christian leader. Steve Chalke was criticized in quite strong terms for his book, which apparently says that the “penal substitutionary” aspect of the atonement is a false teaching. This latest criticism comes following a public debate and an article by Steve Chalke available online, during both of which he reaffirmed his views. The EA statement says:

We trust that instead of dismissing penal substitution out of hand as a false teaching tantamount to “cosmic child abuse,” Steve will recognise its significant place in the range of atonement theories to which Evangelicals have characteristically subscribed. We also trust that he will interact more positively both with the theology which underpins it, and with that vast majority of Evangelicals across the world who continue to affirm it. It may be true, as Steve has claimed, that Evangelicals are often perceived to be harsh, censorious, and ungracious, and that this can hamper evangelism. However, we do not accept Steve’s assertion of a causal or necessary link between affirming penal substitution and being harsh, censorious, and ungracious.

For these reasons, we do not believe that penal substitutionary atonement can be rejected as it is rejected in “The Lost Message of Jesus,” and as Steve has persisted in rejecting it since. While affirming the many gifts which Steve has to offer, we urge him, as a much-loved brother in Christ, to reconsider both the substance and style of his recently expressed views on this matter.

So what was all the fuss about? Steve Chalk in his book says this:

The fact is that the cross isn’t a form of cosmic child abuse—a vengeful father, punishing his son for an offence he has not even committed. Understandably, both people inside and outside of the church have found this twisted version of events morally dubious and a huge barrier to faith. Deeper than that, however, is that such a construct stands in total contradiction to the statement “God is love.” If the cross is a personal act of violence perpetrated by God towards humankind but borne by his son, then it makes a mockery of Jesus’ own teaching to love your enemies and refuse to repay evil with evil. The truth is the cross is a symbol of love. It is a demonstration of just how far God as Father and Jesus as his son are prepared to go to prove that love. The cross is a vivid statement of the powerlessness of love.

Read more . . . Steve Chalke and the Lost Message of Jesus

No. 11 on the list of most-read posts on this blog appeared on April 23, 2007, and examined what is possibly the most controversial article Bishop Tom Wright has ever written. In it, I questioned his ability to criticize some who dismiss Penal Substitutionary Atonement while approving of Steve Chalke, stating his own support for a form of PSA, and decrying angrily the value of the book, Pierced For Our Transgressions. I posed a number of questions to Wright in private e-mails, and sadly, he declined my offer to allow him to clarify his position further on my blog.

There is clearly a theological storm brewing. Bishop Wright has entered the fray, and appears reluctant to stand firmly on one side or the other of the debate. He doesn’t mention the disagreement between UCCF and Spring Harvest, but he doesn’t have to since the issues are clearly the same. I am sure he did not read my post from last Friday on this subject, and the comments that have been flying around here about it — but his statements definitely are as apt to the discussion as if he had!

Wright begins an important article by explaining that he is disappointed with Jeffrey John, who he feels denies the biblical doctrine of the wrath of God. Wright is clear that:

“The biblical doctrine of God’s wrath is rooted in the doctrine of God as the good, wise and loving creator, who hates — yes, hates, and hates implacably — anything that spoils, defaces, distorts or damages his beautiful creation, and in particular anything that does that to his image-bearing creatures. If God does not hate racial prejudice, he is neither good nor loving. If God is not wrathful at child abuse, he is neither good nor loving. If God is not utterly determined to root out from his creation, in an act of proper wrath and judgment, the arrogance that allows people to exploit, bomb, bully, and enslave one another, he is neither loving, nor good, nor wise.”

So far so good, but Wright seems to want to put the blame for the Dean of St. Alban’s rejection of penal substitution firmly at the door of evangelicals who, he feels, have been teaching a caricature of the true biblical teaching. Speaking of what has occurred he says:

“This is what happens when people present over-simple stories with an angry God and a loving Jesus, with a God who demands blood and doesn’t much mind whose it is as long as it’s innocent.“ You’d have thought people would notice that this flies in the face of John’s and Paul’s deep-rooted theology of the love of the triune God: not ‘God was so angry with the world that he gave us his son’ but ‘God so loved the world that he gave us his son’. That’s why, when I sing that interesting recent song ‘In Christ alone my hope is found’, and we come to the line, ‘And on the cross, as Jesus died, the wrath of God was satisfied’, I believe it’s more deeply true to sing ‘the love of God was satisfied’. I commend that alteration to those who sing that song, which is in other respects one of the very few really solid recent additions to our repertoire. So we must readily acknowledge that, of course, there are caricatures of the biblical doctrine all around, within easy reach — just as there are of other doctrines, of course, such as that of God’s grace.”

So if both Jeffrey John and evangelicals have got it wrong, in his opinion, what does Wright feel is the correct understanding?

“. . . this, I think, is as clear as it gets in Paul — in Romans 8:3, where Paul says explicitly that God condemned sin in the flesh of Jesus Christ? Paul does not say that God condemned Jesus; rather, that he condemned sin; but the place where sin was condemned was precisely in the flesh of Jesus, and of Jesus precisely as the Son sent from the Father. And this, we remind ourselves, is the heart of the reason why there is now ‘no condemnation’ for those who are in Christ Jesus. (Romans 8:1) . . .”

[Wright then introduces Romans 3 and states] “To put it somewhat crudely, the logic of the whole passage makes it look as though something has happened in the death of Jesus through which the wrath of God has been turned away. It is on this passage that Charles E. B. Cranfield, one of the greatest English commentators of the last generation, wrote a memorable sentence which shows already that the caricature Dr. John has offered was exactly that:

“We take it that what Paul’s statement that God purposed Christ as a propitiatory victim means is that God, because in His mercy He willed to forgive sinful men and, being truly merciful, willed to forgive them righteously, that is, without in any way condoning their sin, purposed to direct against His own very Self in the person of His Son the full weight of that righteous wrath which they deserved. (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 2 volumes, Edinburgh: T & T Clark; vol. 1, 1975, p. 217.)”

“. . . It isn’t that God happens to have a petulant thing about petty rules. He is the wise and loving creator who cannot abide his creation being despoiled. On the cross he drew the full force, not only of that despoiling, but of his own proper, judicial, punitive rejection of it, on to himself. That is what the New Testament says. That is what Jesus himself, I have argued elsewhere, believed what was going on.”

Wright seems to want to expound a somewhat subtle and nuanced view, the likes of which some people believe Packer and Stott themselves hold — where we are allowed to say that God punished sin in Jesus, but not that Jesus Himself was punished for sin. To me, at least, that kind of statement seems to be trying to have your cake and eat it. This is certainly what Wright seems to do when he then turns to discuss Pierced for Our Transgressions.

He begins in such a way that we are warned that his overall opinion is not positive: “I was all the more frustrated when I came upon a new book . . .” He then acknowledges:

“I can fully understand the frustration, within that tradition, at the way in which some recent writers from within the evangelical world have cast doubt, or worse, on penal substitution as a whole. There do seem to me to be some evangelicals who have done what Jeffrey John has done — rejected the doctrine because of the caricatures.”

Read more . . . N. T. Wright Attacks Both Sides of the Debate

No. 25 on the list of the all-time most popular posts with readers of this blog appeared on July 2, 2007, and summarized some of my series on the atonement. It also included links to a number of other posts on the subject. There were many other posts within this series—the most popular of which was entitled “J. I. Packer on the Atonement.”

As we finally draw near to the conclusion of this long-running series on the atonement, it has struck me just how the lines are being drawn. On the one hand there are those of us who feel PSA is essential to the gospel. It’s not that we think it’s the only thing—or indeed that every gospel presentation must major on it. It’s just that we think it’s essential, and that gospel presentations can’t deny it.

Just yesterday I heard what, to me, was the best gospel message I’ve ever heard. In fact, it didn’t major on an explanation of the exact mechanism of the atonement, but there was a line about the coming wrath of God and how that had to be taken away. I was reminded as I was listening that the gospel shouldn’t become merely a battleground for us to fight over. It should, instead, be something we hold precious. I can’t encourage you enough to download and listen to Tope’s sermon on the prodigal son. Many Christians heard the impact of this message of God’s love and forgiveness with a fresh insight. Several visitors made a response to the gospel. I loved what he said at the close of the sermon—“It may be free, but it wasn’t cheap. It cost the life of his son.”

It seems impossible for those of us who love the gospel of the Savior suffering the punishment of our sins to simply agree to disagree with those on the other hand who claim it is “divine child abuse.” I suspect the divisions in the visible church over this issue will grow more prominent rather than less so. This is just one of several reasons that, as Andrew Cottingham spoke of today, makes ecumenicalism so difficult for some of us who really care.

Today the American magazine, Christianity Today, published an article about the recent UK controversies over the atonement online. They were kind enough to quote me in the article, acknowledging my role in breaking the Word Alive / Spring Harvest story.

9Marks has this month published a whole issue about defining the gospel. They were eager to point out that PSA is essential to it, and the controversy over PSA is mentioned in one of their editorials. Others (including myself) were asked to write 100-word contributions explaining the gospel. I would love to read such a brief outline by someone from the other side of this debate.

There has also recently been an article by D. A. Carson on Penal Substitutionary Atonement which, not surprisingly, comes down firmly on the side of the authors of PFOT and makes plain that PSA is at the heart of the gospel. . . .

Read more of . . . “PSA—Precious Gospel or Divine Child Abuse?“

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

Today I will continue my review of the last year’s blogging which we began yesterday. April was a very interesting month for me on this blog. So much so that it deserves an entire post. It was a month which single-handedly seemed to dramatically raise my UK readership, and that rise persisted after the month ended. Since I have historically had so many US readers compared to British, sometimes this feels like an American blog to me. (OK, I’m sure it doesn’t to my American readers!) But it seems to me that us Brits have yet to embrace blogs as passionately as our cousins across the pond.

After Easter I considered some readily available information about a significant controversy that had risen to the fore again and now threatened to split the Evangelical movement in two. There seemed to me to be an unfathomable reluctance in certain UK Christian media outlets to cover it. I wondered if some news desk decisions were being influenced by certain commercial relationships. In the end, after much deliberation and with the support of my spiritual mentors, I did the first real piece of journalism I had ever done and broke the story that the split between Word Alive and Spring Harvest was not as amicable as many had understood. Suddenly, UK Christians were turning to my blog to read the latest developments and varying opinions of key figures on both sides to whom I tried to give a platform.

Looking back, as messy as that time was, I really don’t regret the decision to break that story. My sources were several and impeccable, and without looking for gossip, I had heard rumors for several months. Interestingly, I subsequently discovered that at least one person had hinted at the same story on their own blog before me. (Sadly I cannot now remember the link to that.) I didn’t expect the level of public debate between the two sides that would occur, nor the phone calls I would receive from key players on both sides to explain their version of events to me. I felt like something of an agony uncle at times, and knew far more details about the situation than I would have wanted to publish or it would have been beneficial to publish. Splits are always painful. This was the first one that played out in front of the amassed Christian blogs.

I was glad of one thing—the secular media did not pick up the story, although in a sense it shows how irrelevant we have become to their perception of our culture. I really didn’t expect to have such a role, and I very much doubt that there will be too many times in the future when I will find myself doing a similar thing.

You can trace the story as it emerged here on my blog in the following posts:

• Word Alive and Spring Harvest to Separate After Fifteen Years Because of the Atonement
• Response from UCCF to the Spring Harvest Decision to End the Word Alive Bible Teaching Week After Fourteen Years.
• The Atonement—N. T. Wright Attacks Both Sides of the Debate
• Pete Broadbent of Spring Harvest Makes a Statement About Word Alive
• Peter Broadbent States Atonement Was a Factor in Spring Harvest Split

The interesting thing was that I was, in any case, in full flow in a series on the atonement. So, with the whole blogosphere lit up on this issue, the blog posts I had already written seemed so much more relevant. Here are the posts in question:

• Wright Quotes That Affirm Penal Substitutionary Atonement
• Dave Warnock Shares an Alternative View of the Atonement
• John Stott—Champion of Penal Subsitutionary Atonement Retires
• The Atonement—Penal Substitutionary Atonement Defined
• The Atonement—If Jesus Was Not a Sinner, Why Did He Die?
• The Atonement—The Place of Union With Christ
• The Atonement—The Terrible Problem of Sin
• The Atonement—Wrong Ideas About the Cross
• The Atonement—Should We Disagree With John Stott?
• The Atonement—Packer on Penal Substitution
• The Atonement—The Mission of Jesus
• The Atonement—The Historical Background to the Cross
• The Atonement—An Attack on Penal Substitution
• The Atonement—Quotes From Leon Morris
• The Atonement—Does the Cross of Jesus Matter?
• T4G Article 7—The Atonement: An Introduction

Somehow in the midst of all that, I also blogged about other subjects. Notably, the following posts reflected on other debates, and also how we can cooperate together despite certain differences:

• Relating Together for the Gospel
• A Cessationist Healing?
• Newfrontiers Magazine Focuses on Healing
• The PCA Considering Excluding Followers of N. T. Wright
• Mark Driscoll Banned Church Planting Video

I also blogged a fair bit about the resurrection, including the following:

• The Resurrection Empowered Life—Gazing on Jesus
• The Resurrection Empowered LIfe
• Book—How Much Does God Foreknow? by Steve Roy

I also remember one of my rare forays into the world of politics in US Election—Dipping My Toe Into a Can of Worms, and an article I published elsewhere entitled Loving God—A Guide for Beginners.

I have spent a bit of time over the last few days rediscovering Theopedia. It is not quite so frenetic and unstructured as Wikkipedia. This is probably due to its requirement that you acknowledge a statement of faith and be registered before editing items. They are keen for more contributors and if you have good quality material you have blogged and are willing to adapt, they are happy for it to be included in their articles with the appropriate acknowledgments. Would be great to have a few more bloggers over there. Here are the articles for which I have made some contributions so far (some more significantly than others):

• Gifts of the Spirit
• Gift of Prophecy
• Penal Substitutionary Atonement
• Pastor
• Steve Chalke
• Mark Driscoll
• Wayne Grudem
• C. J. Mahaney
• Together For the Gospel
• Mark Dever
• Ligon Duncan
• Albert Mohler
• Jacob
• Terry Virgo

Yesterday I shared a quote from Wayne Grudem on the atonement. Today it’s Spurgeon’s turn:

“All the love and acceptance which perfect obedience could have obtained of God belong to you because Christ was perfectly obedient on your behalf. Those who set aside the atonement as a satisfaction for sin also murder the doctrine of justification by faith. They must do so. There is a common element which is the essence of both doctrines; so that, if you deny the one, you destroy the other.

Modern thought is nothing but an attempt to bring back the legal system of salvation by works. Our battle is the same as that which Luther fought at the Reformation. If you go to the very ground and root of it, grace is taken away, and human merit is substituted. The gracious act of God in pardoning sin is excluded, and human effort is made all in all, both for past sin and future hope. Every man is now to set up as his own saviour, and the atonement is shelved as a pious fraud.

I will not foul my mouth with the unworthy phrases which have been used in reference to the substitutionary work of our Lord Jesus Christ; but it is a sore grief of heart to note how these evil things are tolerated by men whom we respect . . .

I must have a righteousness, perfect and Divine; yet it is beyond my own power to create. I find it in Christ: I read that it will become mine by faith, and by faith I take it. My conscience tells me that I must render to God’s justice a recompense for the dishonour that I have done to His law, and I cannot find anything which bears the semblance of such a recompense till I look to Christ Jesus . . .”

— Charles Haddon Spurgeon

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.

UPDATE
In January 2008, the following post was identified as the 25th all-time most popular post with readers of this blog. The 26th most-read post was “25% Off Logos Bible Software by Libronix.

This post summarizes some of my series on the atonement, and links to a number of other posts on the subject. There are many other posts within this series—the most popular of which was one entitled “J. I. Packer on the Atonement.“

***************

As we finally draw near to the conclusion of this long-running series on the atonement, it has struck me just how the lines are being drawn. On the one hand there are those of us who feel PSA is essential to the gospel. It’s not that we think it’s the only thing—or indeed that every gospel presentation must major on it. It’s just that we think it’s essential, and that gospel presentations can’t deny it.

Just yesterday I heard what, to me, was the best gospel message I’ve ever heard. In fact, it didn’t major on an explanation of the exact mechanism of the atonement, but there was a line about the coming wrath of God and how that had to be taken away. I was reminded as I was listening that the gospel shouldn’t become merely a battleground for us to fight over. It should, instead, be something we hold precious. I can’t encourage you enough to download and listen to Tope’s sermon on the prodigal son. Many Christians heard the impact of this message of God’s love and forgiveness with a fresh insight. Several visitors made a response to the gospel. I loved what he said at the close of the sermon—“It may be free, but it wasn’t cheap. It cost the life of his son.”

It seems impossible for those of us who love the gospel of the Savior suffering the punishment of our sins to simply agree to disagree with those on the other hand who claim it is “divine child abuse.” I suspect the divisions in the visible church over this issue will grow more prominent rather than less so. This is just one of several reasons that, as Andrew Cottingham spoke of today, makes ecumenicalism so difficult for some of us who really care.

Today the American magazine, Christianity Today, published an article about the recent UK controversies over the atonement online. They were kind enough to quote me in the article, acknowledging my role in breaking the Word Alive / Spring Harvest story.

9Marks has this month published a whole issue about defining the gospel. They were eager to point out that PSA is essential to it, and the controversy over PSA is mentioned in one of their editorials. Others (including myself) were asked to write 100-word contributions explaining the gospel. I would love to read such a brief outline by someone from the other side of this debate.

There has also recently been an article by D. A. Carson on Penal Substitutionary Atonement which, not surprisingly, comes down firmly on the side of the authors of PFOT and makes plain that PSA is at the heart of the gospel.

Over the weekend Tim Challies posted his review of the book Pierced For Our Transgressions. He rightly says that PSA has “come under attack by influential and popular evangelical leaders. Needless to say, controversy has followed, and for good reason.” Challies values the book and concludes:

“Endorsed by a veritable who’s who of conservative evangelicals, this book is sure to clearly delineate the divide between those who hold to the historic Protestant position on this doctrine and those who do not. It has already done this in the U.K., and we expect it to do the same on the other side of the Atlantic when it is released later this year. I pray that it is widely read, widely studied, and widely influential. Jeffery, Ovey, and Sach have done the church a service with this volume. I’m grateful for it and commend it to you.”

Things are starting to look quite clear-cut. There are, however, some gray lines on the issue since, as we have seen during the debates, there are many who hold some form of PSA but seek to define it in a different way. It is not for me to propose today exactly how such lines should be drawn.

It was very interesting, considering the context of all the debate about the atonement and resultant concerns about how to ensure doctrinal unity, to hear Terry Virgo in his interview with me outline an approach to this that is radically different to the way most evangelical organizations work. He explained that the family of churches of which he is a part does not have a statement of faith. He said:

“We don’t, in fact, have a statement of faith, because I wouldn’t want to be defining in a kind of way that can put people in a kind of prison . . .

It’s about building churches that are flooded with the Holy Spirit’s presence and genuine integrity of relationship. Into those churches the truth is taught and from them the truth is proclaimed to the world . . .

Though we are diligent for truth, we relate in and through churches rather than by doctrinal statements.”

— Terry Virgo

To anyone who thinks that pieces of paper guarantee doctrinal unity and integrity, I would simply ask them to go and read the 39 Articles of the Church of England. As great a document as that is, has it guaranteed that every member of the Anglican Movement worldwide has doctrinal unity? Of course not!

Terry is right, in my opinion, that true relational integrity is the most important thing here in maintaining the true unity of the faith. It is only as we speak with each other at great length about our hopes and dreams, our values and beliefs, and where they have come from that we can have growing confidence that we are truly on the same page as each other theologically. Such a process can be seen as the development of a kind of “theological friendship”.

As I was explaining to my daughter tonight, for each of us friendships are a bit like a ring of concentric circles. People don’t become best friends overnight or by comparing some kind of written checklist of what they are looking for in a friend. When it comes to doctrinal unity, I very much see that functioning—at least in my life and in some of the churches I’m aware of.

I think some of the problems we have on the blogosphere is that we forget that we are not all in a church together. I certainly welcome and want to treat with full respect any who claim the name of Christian (and for that matter most who do not!) to this blog and to the discussion forum. Far from wanting to curse people and reject them, I want to debate and explain.

But within that circle of inclusiveness there are inevitably other circles with increasing levels of exclusiveness theologically. Thus the closer we are to each other relationally and in terms of working together in God’s kingdom, the more I am going to want us to share the same values and beliefs. This is inevitable and bits of paper do not do a great job of defining something that is almost imponderable.

I am not at all surprised, for example, that as explained by Mark Dever, despite a willingness to be very open to Arminians, the Together For The Gospel friends have found themselves, as their strong relational ties formed, to all be Reformed. Mark Dever is also right to stress that the gospel itself is more central and more core, however, than some of the things that hold them together as buddies.

I guess what I am trying to say is essentially that birds of a feather flock together. I am convinced that we need not try and fight that inevitable thing. Nor is its corollary such a bad thing—which is that the journey through the concentric rings of friendship and commitment that make up the average church are often accompanied by a person changing a number of their views to match those of the group. That process of change is one reason why we should choose a church wisely, but I am convinced that it is not just a case of us being molded by the company we keep. Rather, those who do not feel they fit theologically and are not persuaded by the teaching they are hearing will tend to either keep themselves at a comfortable level of distance or possibly even leave and find a church where they do fit.

This delicate process is almost like a dance. We must learn to treat each other with respect, to allow people to be where they are currently, and as appropriate, help them to take the next step in their own journey to follow Jesus. For me, believe it or not, blogging has been a journey increasingly away from being overly controversial and argumentative towards trying to reach out and understand the opinions of others. It has not been an easy journey, nor has it been one that has been without its setbacks. No doubt some will feel that I have, at times, been too provocative. Others, probably on the contrary, feel I am too soft on those who disagree! It is certainly a fine line to draw.

Wherever you stand on all the debates that fly around the blogosphere, I hope we can journey together for awhile and learn from each other—if nothing else, we should at least be able to gain an accurate view of what we both believe. I do believe that if we each focus on moving from where we stand one step closer to the God of the Bible, we will find ourselves gradually drawing closer together in what we believe.

I will end this post with a verse that should perhaps be every bloggers’ motto. I know I don’t always live up to it, but by God’s grace this is certainly my aim. Remembering that not everything is worth arguing over, but that some doctrinal errors are nothing short of a snare of the devil, is vital. May God help us to be always gentle with each other—even when we feel the difference of opinion is so critically important that it cannot merely be overlooked.

“So flee youthful passions and pursue righteousness, faith, love, and peace, along with those who call on the Lord from a pure heart. Have nothing to do with foolish, ignorant controversies; you know that they breed quarrels. And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.”

(2 Timothy 2:22-26)

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

—–

A reader recently pointed me to the following passage from a longer article on The Resurgence about Brett Kunkle’s concerns about the Emergent movement. I hope my American readers appreciate that the atonement issue is far from being just  a UK problem at the moment; this quote certainly makes that plain!

“My first area of concern is the cross. Here we ask questions like “What is the meaning of the atonement?” and “Did Jesus actually pay for or purchase anything on the cross?” How are EC leaders answering?

Brian McLaren addresses the cross in his book, The Story We Find Ourselves In. His fictional character Kerry, who happens to be a seeker, asks how Jesus fits in to God’s story. Carol, a Christian, answers with a summary of substitutionary atonement: “Well, I believe that God sent Jesus into the world to absorb all the punishment for our sins. That’s what the cross was all about. It was Jesus absorbing the punishment that all of us deserve. He became the substitute for all of us. As he suffered and died, all our wrongs were paid for, so all of us can be forgiven.” Kerry responds: “For starters, if God wants to forgive us, why doesn’t he just do it? How does punishing an innocent person make things better? That just sounds like one more injustice in the cosmic equation. It sounds like divine child abuse. You know?” Surprisingly, Kerry’s “divine child abuse” analogy is not the most disturbing aspect of McLaren’s narrative. What is is the absence of a biblically informed response from the other characters. As the narrative continues, the legitimacy of the analogy is never refuted, let alone examined or questioned.

Taken alone, this is worrisome. Coupled with McLaren’s endorsement of Steve Chalke’s book, The Lost Message of Jesus, this is cause for concern. But add to these the following account from McLaren’s book, More Ready Than You Realize, and his views on the cross are a serious concern. So what does McLaren say there?

McLaren describes an encounter with George, a parishioner at his church. George believes in God but, by his own admission, is “still no closer to believing in Jesus Christ” because Jesus doesn’t make sense, particularly his death on the cross. George asks Brian, “Why did Jesus have to die?” Upon hearing the question, McLaren is struck by two thoughts. First, George seemed to be asking the question in a way McLaren had never been asked. Second, McLaren does not think his Christian answers fit the way George is asking the question. McLaren asks George for two weeks to think about an answer. After wrestling with the question but finding no answer, McLaren shares the dilemma with his brother Peter saying, “ . . . a couple of weeks ago I realized that I don’t know why Jesus had to die.” His brother quickly responded, “Well, neither did Jesus.” After citing the story of Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane as evidence, Peter says, “sounds to me like Jesus didn’t really understand why it had to be that way either. But the point wasn’t understanding it; the point was doing what needed to be done.”

When it is time to meet with George again, McLaren recounts his brother’s answer to George’s question, “Why did Jesus have to die?” George, while acknowledging that Brian’s response does not answer his question, believes this is actually better than an answer and tells Brian, “It kind of makes the question not really matter so much.” And then McLaren concludes the account with this: “Over the next few weeks, George progressed in his faith to the point of becoming a committed follower of Jesus.”

Let me say three things in response. First, does McLaren actually think Jesus did not know why he had to die? What about Matthew 20:28? ” . . . just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.” Or what about Jesus’ words to his disciples at the Last Supper? “And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you; for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.” Surely Jesus knew why he had to die. One cannot read the New Testament and conclude otherwise.

Second, does McLaren think one can become a “committed follower of Jesus” without knowing why Jesus had to die? This is certainly implied in his interaction with George. But is there not some minimal understanding needed of sin and the cross before one can place their trust in Christ? Is not an understanding of sin inextricably bound up with repentance? Again, I must side with the New Testament rather than McLaren.

Third, is McLaren being faithful to the gospel when a member of the flock entrusted to him asks him why Jesus has to die and he can give no answer? How can he allow George to walk away thinking this question doesn’t really matter that much anymore? After reading McLaren, we are left with serious concerns regarding his view of the cross.”

My interview with the authors of pierced for our transgressions seems to have created something of a stir. The comments section shows two very distinct reactions to the way I chose to close the interview. When one uses google blogsearch to track the way others have written about it on their own blogs a similar picture emerges.

Now, what is interesting to me is the strong reaction to me citing Paul’s curse on those who preach another gospel to him. I did not curse anybody myself, and have no intention of doing so, since I am not given the authority that Paul had. BUT, and this is very important, Paul’s words should give all of us cause to stop, and think very carefully about where we stand on the atonement – which is central to the gospel.

The facts are clear. There is an impressive body of people who have taught some form of penal substitution over the centuries. I recognise that there is some variation within that group – for example those who believe sin was punished in Jesus but are reluctant to say that Jesus himself was punished by God the father. But if the gospel is anything it is a message about the seriousness of sin, and what God has done to deal with it and allow us to be considered good enough to get into heaven.

There are some people in the comment section of this blog who have clearly rejected PSA and any form of justification by faith alone, arguing instead that the cross causes us to change, repent and live righteously and it is that change in us that allows God to forgive us.

The previous paragraph sure does not sound like the same gospel I was taught. Indeed PSA is so central to the presentations of the gospel I have heard that it seems to me at least that to deny it is to automatically be preaching another gospel to the one that I am preaching and that my current and historical heroes preach.

It is not as though I am alone in this view. The astonishingly long list of endorsements of the book pierced for our transgressions shows how important many people feel this is. Whatever else went on behind the scenes, the fact is that from next year there will be two Easter Christian conferences in the UK which will have different perspectives on what is essential to believe about the atonement.

Martyn Lloyd-Jones also said we cannot possibly have true fellowship with those who differ with us significantly over the atonement.

In all this we are left with the bald facts. Paul curses those who teach another gospel TO HIM. In this day of different gospels being preached in the church, it is encumbant on each of us – me as much as anyone else – to ask ourselves “Am I preaching a different gospel to Paul?”

I would challenge each of my readers, whatever they believe about the atonement to join with me in examining what the bible has to say about it. Show us why – from the bible not mere deduction and human reason- you feel I am wrong, and what you believe really is the case about the atonement. If it is me that stands in the way of Paul’s curse, then you owe it to me to explain why I should believe in a different message of hope than I do. I implore you to show me the error of my ways and save me from my heresy if you believe I am so far from the true message of the bible.

It really saddens me that whilst those of us on this side of the PSA fence have written books and voluminous blog posts on the issue, there is a relative silence from the other side. Steve Chalke ought to be saying a lot more about the subject than he has if I and others are in danger of falling on the wrong side of Paul’s curse. His silence has been deafening, and to me speaks volumes about how he views this issue. For his organization to highlight N T Wrights article which claims Chalke believes in something he has himself called cosmic child abuse and then refuse to explain how to square that circle seems just plain wrong to me.

It is not for me to curse anyone, and I have not done so. But I will not apologize for highlighting Paul’s curse of those who disagree with him over the gospel. I really do not think it is possible for us to over-emphasize the importance of getting the gospel right. I hope you understand that I am seriously concerned for you my readers and anxious that we all ensure that what we are believing is really the same message that Paul and for that matter Jesus taught.

I reported here a while back that Bishop Broadbent, leader of the Spring Harvest team, has accepted that disagreements over Steve Chalke played at least some role in the split between Word Alive and Spring Harvest. Today the UCCF issued a follow-up statement on their website which seems to aim to be conciliatory.

There is still no official statement or comment from Spring Harvest itself as an organisation in response to the ones from UCCF. Neither has Steve Chalke replied to the following question I asked him via the Oasis press office in light of the current controversy and N. T.Wright’s intervention:-”Was N. T. Wright correct to say that you hold to a form of penal substitutionary atonement? If so, how do you reconcile that with your previous statements in follow-up articles to your book that it was penal substitutionary atonement that you described as ‘cosmic child abuse’?”

Here is the full text of today’s UCCF statement:

Word Alive — the past and the future

Since the recent Word Alive event in partnership with Spring Harvest, there has been much print given to the reasons for the split and these have unfortunately led to a range of complexities, distortions and disputes about the issues. In the meantime, UCCF, Keswick Ministries and Spring Harvest were approached with an offer of independent, formal mediation with a view to producing a joint, clarifying statement. UCCF and Keswick both accepted this offer but Spring Harvest unfortunately declined.

Since there is now no prospect of a formal objective procedure to clear up some of the details, we see no point in perpetuating this dispute any further. We admit that we have unwittingly contributed to it by giving the impression that the Word Alive committee rejected a specific request to allow Steve Chalke on the Word Alive platform in 2007. A request for Steve Chalke to be acceptable to Word Alive (following his signing of the updated EA Doctrinal Basis) actually had been made in general but not in specific terms to the Word Alive committee on 17th May 2006. We apologise for unintentionally being misleading about this.

While there had been niggles with Spring Harvest on other matters over the years, all parties had managed to live with them. It was made quite clear to us by Spring Harvest that the decisive issue, which caused them to end the partnership now, was our refusal to allow Steve Chalke to share our platform because of his unorthodox views on the atonement and the way he expresses them.

Other statements, which we previously made, have been disputed but on reviewing those matters, we see no good reason to change them, but we will not rehearse them again here. Others are responsible for their own statements, and although they may have emerged out of genuine misunderstandings, we feel they have not helped. (We note that not everyone was in attendance at every relevant meeting.) Since we cannot achieve the all round clarity we desire, we do not want to look backwards any longer on this unhappy episode but press on towards the future, which is a new Word Alive event in partnership between UCCF and Keswick. Furthermore, we want to wish Spring Harvest well and thank them for all they have done to make Word Alive the great success it has been.

The new Word Alive event will take place at Phwhelli in North Wales (it is pronounced something like “Porth – helly”) from 7-11 April 2008. Confirmed speakers include Don Carson, John Piper and Terry Virgo. A full programme for all the family, including crèche facilities, children and teens groups as well as our vibrant student track, is currently being arranged. We are greatly looking forward to the new event and the opportunity it gives us to develop the Word Alive conference. END