Read an Excerpt

The Atonement Debate Papers from the London Symposium on the Theology of Atonement

the present debate in context david hilborn

The Incarnation of the Son of God, His work of Atonement for the sinners of mankind, and His Mediatorial Intercession and Reign. - Doctrinal Basis of Faith of the World's Evangelical Alliance, 1846

The substitutionary sacrifice of the incarnate Son of God as the sole all-sufficient ground of redemption from the guilt and power of sin, and from its eternal consequences. - Evangelical Alliance (UK) Basis of Faith, 1970

The atoning sacrifice of Christ on the cross: dying in our place, paying the price of sin and defeating evil, so reconciling us with God. - Evangelical Alliance (UK) Basis of Faith, 2005

However it is defined, there is little doubt that the evangelical tradition is distinguished by a strong emphasis on the cross of Christ and on the atonement accomplished by Christ's death. Some might want to qualify David Bebbington's now familiar typology of evangelicalism, but it would be hard to deny his assertion that down the centuries, the "pre-eminent ground of agreement" between evangelicals has been "the cruciality of the cross". Likewise, as Alister McGrath has expressed it, "Evangelicalism places an especial emphasis on the cross of Christ" and sees the atonement as establishing "the centrality of Christ to Christian worship and adoration". Derek Tidball concurs, stressing that the atonement is "the central core of evangelical belief and preaching. Evangelicals make redemption the pivot of the faith. Where others place the doctrines of creation or of incarnation, evangelicals place the atonement. It is, quite simply, the heart of evangelicalism."

As co-sponsors of the July 2005 symposium from which this volume is derived, both the Evangelical Alliance UK (EA) and the London School of Theology (LST) bear out such crucicentrism in their respective Bases of Faith. Both bodies have revised their doctrinal statements in recent times, but their formal theological commitments remain as atonement-centred as ever. At the heart of LST's Basis lies the affirmation that Jesus secured our salvation by "dying on the cross in our place", thus "representing us to God" and "redeeming us from the grip, guilt and punishment of sin". When EA was formed in 1846, its Basis concisely asserted Christ's "work of Atonement for the sinners of mankind". When that original Basis was reworded in 1970, this brief statement was superseded by a clause which spelt out more explicitly how the atonement defines evangelical belief. That clause affirmed "the substitutionary sacrifice of the incarnate Son of God as the sole and all-sufficient ground of redemption from the guilt and power of sin, and from its eternal consequences". With comparable force, the present EA Basis affirms "the atoning sacrifice of Christ on the cross: dying in our place, paying the price of sin and defeating evil, so reconciling us to God". Thus both EA and LST remain committed to the classical evangelical view that the atonement wrought by God in Christ on the cross stands at the heart of the gospel - that it critically authenticates Christian life and mission. Together, they look with Paul to "preach Christ crucified"; together, they seek "never to boast of anything except the cross of our Lord" (1 Cor. 1:23; Gal. 6:14).

For most evangelicals, the central importance of the cross as such is not in dispute. Indeed, the current controversies surrounding atonement theology in evangelicalism have more to do with how the cross operates at the heart of Christian faith, rather than whether it does so. There are multiple aspects to this "how" question, and many are covered elsewhere in this book. In particular, though, argument has centred on a theory or model of the atonement which has defined evangelical faith more than any other, but which has latterly been subject to mounting critique - not only from liberal theologians but also from several more radical representatives of the evangelical community. I am referring, of course, to "penal substitution". The particular dispute which prompted the joint EA-LST symposium was catalysed by the stark critique of penal substitution presented by Steve Chalke and Alan Mann in their book, The Lost Message of Jesus - a critique subsequently elaborated by Chalke in various articles, interviews and statements, and by Mann in his monograph Atonement for a Sinless Society.

In sketching this background, it should be stressed that the chief purpose of the London symposium was not to subject Chalke, Mann and their work to a heresy trial. Some may regret that the intrinsic diversity of evangelicalism inevitably dilutes attempts to exercise pan-evangelical doctrinal discipline, and some may have remedies to suggest on this front. The symposium, however, was not the place to apply them. Through more than 160 years, the EA has occasionally urged certain of its members to resign over theological matters: T. R. Birks over hell and restitution in 1870; the Jesus Army over ecclesiology in the 1980s; Maurice Cerullo over prosperity teaching in the mid-1990s; and Courage Trust over their changed stance on homosexual practice at the turn of the millennium. Yet it has always been negotiated resignation rather than summary expulsion. Moreover, the problems have been as much to do with practice as belief.

Indeed, throughout the Lost Message controversy, Steve Chalke has clearly affirmed both past and present EA Bases of Faith. In such circumstances, what the original 1846 Basis called the "right to private judgement" must pertain, at least while the terms of the debate are clarified and the theological arguments carefully weighed. EA did not rush to operate as a thought police in this matter; it did not presume to make "windows into men's souls". Besides, as this volume confirms, intra-evangelical dispute on penal substitution is much older, wider and more momentous than any such narrow ad hominem targeting of Chalke or Mann would suggest. In fact, a key point in favour of holding the symposium at LST was that it would foster concentration on the broader issues at stake in the atonement debate, rather than on the personalities most immediately and most recently associated with that debate.

Having said all this, Alister McGrath is quite right to note that evangelicalism on the ground is one of the most personality-driven of all Christian traditions. As the Alliance's head of theology at the time of the London symposium, my work was funded by a charitable body which for the most part operated not in scholarly arenas but through local evangelical congregations, parachurch organisations, and networks. In these contexts, it can take some time for doctrinal debates to filter through from the academy. They tend to remain relatively obscure until a high-profile preacher, evangelist or church leader popularises them - and in Britain few evangelical personalities enjoy as high a profile as Steve Chalke MBE. Hence, when he decided to question penal substitution in The Lost Message of Jesus, an issue which had barely registered in EA's postbags and inboxes for decades swiftly galvanised the evangelical community. As a personal member of EA who leads organisations which are in turn corporate members, it was inevitable that Chalke's relationship with the Alliance, and with its Basis of Faith, would be questioned. It was also inevitable that having thus been drawn into the controversy, there would be pressure on EA to do something about it. Before examining EA's response and how that response led to the London symposium, it will be helpful to put the Lost Message issue more fully into context.

The Lost Message of Jesus was published in December 2003. Its chief aim was not to expound a detailed theology of the cross but rather to demonstrate "the core of Jesus' life-transforming, though often deeply misunderstood, message". This core message was summarized in terms of God's kingdom or "inbreaking shalom" being available now to everyone through Jesus Christ. However, it was Chalke and Mann's interpretation of the death of Christ which attracted the most attention.

Typically, evangelical crucicentrism has emphasised the "objective" nature of the atonement, whereby Christ's death is seen once and for all to have effected reconciliation between God and fallen, sinful human beings. Historically, this has been explained by various theories drawn from a wide range of biblical imagery, and evangelicals have characteristically acknowledged that orthodox understanding of it depends on a combination of such theories, rather than on any one in isolation. As the leading evangelical expositor of atonement, Leon Morris, put it, "Christ's atoning work is so complex and our minds are so small. We cannot take it all in. We need the positive contributions of all the theories, for each draws attention to some aspect of what Christ has done for us. And though in the end we cannot understand it all, we can thankfully accept 'so great a salvation'." Thus, in accordance with Romans 5:15-21, evangelicals have recognised the theory of recapitulation, in which the life and death of the sinless Christ reverse Adam and Eve's disobedience and make human beings right with God. On the basis of texts like Matthew 20:28 and Mark 10:45, they have appreciated the dramatic theory, in which Christ's death achieves victory in a cosmic conflict between good and evil and secures humanity's release from bondage to sin. Citing John 10:18, evangelicals have also valued the commercial theory, in which Christ's death is seen as bringing infinite honour to God - an honour which is applied to human beings and thereby redeems the dishonour which attends their sinful state.

Yet amidst these and other theories, penal substitution has widely been regarded as the "controlling model" within mainline evangelicalism - the sine qua non of evangelical soteriology. As construed from texts such as Isaiah 53:6-10, Romans 3:25, Hebrews 9:11-10:22 and 1 Peter 3:18, penal substitution presents Jesus' crucifixion as a vicarious sacrifice which appeased or "propitiated" God's wrath towards sin by paying the due "penalty" for that sin, which is suffering, death and condemnation. Whereas sinful humanity stood to incur this penalty, the sinless Christ incurred it for us on Calvary. Precisely because he is without sin, he was thus able to cancel or "expiate" the guilt which attends it, so bringing us forgiveness, imputing righteousness to us and restoring our relationship with God.

The origins of penal substitution as a systematic model are much disputed, as the reader will see in various contributions to this volume. Sympathetic evangelical accounts characteristically trace its development through Clement of Rome in the first century, Cyril of Jerusalem in the fourth, Augustine in the fifth, John Calvin in the sixteenth, and John Owen in the seventeenth, ultimately ascribing its more detailed form to the nineteenth-century Princeton theologians Charles Hodge and Benjamin B. Warfield. With this pedigree, penal substitution is often deemed by evangelicals to be the most fulfilling description of the role of the cross in the process of salvation.

However, Steve Chalke and Alan Mann take a different view. In chapter 10 of The Lost Message of Jesus, they reject penal substitution on the grounds that it turns God from a loving Father into a vengeful tyrant, who "suddenly decides to vent his anger and wrath on his own Son". Then, either consciously or unconsciously echoing feminist theologian Rita Nakishima Brock, they provocatively cast this version of the atonement as a "form of cosmic child abuse". They claim that as well as its being a "total contradiction of the statement 'God is love'", it "makes a mockery of Jesus' own teaching to love your enemies and to refuse to repay evil with evil". In a subsequent solo article, Chalke emphasises that this critique of penal substitution extends even beyond questions about "how the cross works" to "the very nature of God, and as a consequence, the task of Christian mission and the attitude of the Church". Unsurprisingly, these charges have drawn a strong reaction. Reviewing The Lost Message of Jesus in June 2004, Mike Ovey and Andrew Sach accused Chalke and Mann of propounding "a wrong view of God", "a wrong view of man" and "a wrong view of the cross". Whereas the Bible often portrays God's "white-hot moral purity and indignation at sin", they wrote, The Lost Message of Jesus had "airbrushed" such divine attributes out of the picture. Similarly, they asked, "If God is not angry, and humans are not essentially guilty, then what job remains for the cross?" Underlining these concerns, Garry Williams wrote that The Lost Message of Jesus offered no more than a "caricature" of penal substitution which would simply "not do". Similar sentiments were expressed by Greg Haslam in a robust defence of penal substitution, which countered point by point the proposals made by Chalke and Mann.

Despite these harsh appraisals, The Lost Message of Jesus attracted robust support from the Christian political think tank Ekklesia, from members of the Anabaptist Network and from correspondents to various Christian periodicals, not least the newspaper of Chalke's own denomination, the Baptist Times. Furthermore, as early as June 2004, the Spring Harvest Leadership Team, of which Chalke is a prominent member, issued a statement stressing that he continued to uphold its own theological position. Significantly, that position was and still is defined by the Evangelical Alliance Basis of Faith, as well as by the Lausanne Covenant (1974). Indeed, once Spring Harvest had issued this statement, it became impossible for EA to stay on the sidelines of the dispute.

(Continues...)

---

Excerpted from The Atonement Debate Copyright © 2008 by by Evangelical Alliance and London School of Theology. Excerpted by permission.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.

---