Conference on the cross

Readers will be aware that penal substitution — that Jesus died in the place of his people and bore the penalty for their sins — has become a controversial doctrine within certain sectors of British evangelicalism.

Most recently, Steve Chalke has dismissed the doctrine in a book and a series of articles, even caricaturing it as ‘a form of cosmic child abuse’.

In response, the Evangelical Alliance (EA), of which Chalke is a high-profile member, undertook a three-part strategy of discussion and reflection. First, they hosted a public dialogue last October. Then, in November, the EA Council issued a statement reiterating the Alliance’s commitment to penal substitution, as outlined in its Basis of Faith. The final stage was a Symposium on the Atonement, co-sponsored by London School of Theology (LST, formerly London Bible College) from July 6-8 in London. At the symposium, a number of scholars presented papers criticising or defending the doctrine. There were also seminars and some shorter presentations focussed on significant biblical passages, such as Isaiah 53 and Romans 3.25-26. Over 200 delegates attended, including ministers, academics, and lay-people from around the country.

Old and new basis

We began with an introduction from David Hilborn, EA’s theological advisor, who took a few minutes to explain the EA’s old (1970) and new (2005) bases of faith, arguing that while neither contains the phrase ‘penal substitution’, both intend to uphold the doctrine. He also insisted that the conference was a conversation within the evangelical ‘family’. Steve Chalke then spoke briefly, reaffirming his denial of penal substitution, calling for ongoing dialogue, and urging the importance of listening carefully to one another.

The main sessions took the form of lectures followed by questions. Stephen Holmes (lecturer in theology at St. Andrews University) kicked off with an overview of the history of penal substitution among evangelicals since 1730. Holmes covered a broad sweep of material with great skill, arguing that until the 20th century, the majority of orthodox evangelicals taught the doctrine.

For and against

In the more theological presentations, Joel Green (Professor of New Testament at Asbury Theological Seminary, Kentucky, USA) and Graham McFarlane (lecturer at LST) offered criticisms of the doctrine. Chris Wright (director of the Langham Partnership), Howard Marshall (Professor Emeritus at Aberdeen), and Garry Williams (lecturer at Oak Hill College) defended it. The papers were a fascinating, and at times frustrating, mix.

Green claimed that penal substitution severs the cross from the incarnation, and produces a distorted view of God. He also asserted that it is individualistic, mechanistic, and undermines calls for Christians to live holy lives. These are serious charges. But perhaps what surprised delegates more than anything was Green’s willingness to launch personal attacks on well-respected evangelical leaders on both sides of the Atlantic because they hold to a traditional evangelical account of the cross.

Cause for alarm

Graham McFarlane’s presentation skirted around the issue the conference was seeking to address. It was not until he took questions that it became clear that he is profoundly opposed to penal substitution. The presentation itself was, to this reviewer’s mind at least, confused and confusing, contradicting itself on a number of occasions. However, what was perhaps most alarming was that it undermined the orthodox doctrine of the Person of Christ, a point McFarlane appeared not to have considered!

McFarlane was not the only speaker with problems regarding an orthodox Christology. In conversation with me following his presentation, Joel Green expressed disagreement with the Chalcedonian Definition, the traditional description of the way that the one man Christ can be fully human and fully divine. Thus, the symposium exposed not merely disagreements regarding the cross, but also fundamental disagreements over the mainstream, orthodox Christian understanding of the Person of Christ.

Upping the stakes

The papers defending penal substitution were much more positive. Chris Wright summarised the Old Testament teaching on atonement, arguing that penal substitution is one of a number of Scriptural models for the cross. It is vital, because if Jesus did not bear the penalty for our sins, we must. Howard Marshall went a step further, showing how themes of guilt, punishment, wrath, and judgement pervade the New Testament. He then argued that penal substitution is central to Scripture and underlies the other atonement models, such as redemption, reconciliation, and forgiveness.

Finally, on the last day, Garry Williams dealt with all the arguments previously alleged against penal substitution. Williams upped the stakes by pointing out that, although the debate had been presented as a discussion within the ‘family’, the issues go much deeper. People on both sides recognise that our doctrine of the atonement inevitably affects our doctrines of God, Christ, and the Christian life. The conversation therefore concerns issues at the heart of the Christian faith, over which we cannot simply agree to differ. In conclusion, he called those denying penal substitution either to repent publicly, or to leave EA. This presentation was refreshing, because not only did it deal with the issues head-on, it also acknowledged their importance.

However, the closing time of questions, directed to a panel of Green, Marshall, Robin Parry, and Alan Mann, was disappointing. Following a ‘Question Time’ format, questions had been submitted in writing beforehand. Sadly, these appeared to have been vetted, and none of the controversial issues were aired, even though various delegates had submitted some tough questions. I do not think it would be unfair to say that this represented EA’s response to the Symposium: while difficult and controversial issues had been raised, it seems that, above all, the Alliance desires to maintain an uneasy peace over this issue.

Regret

Nevertheless, the question panel did contain one encouragement. Several times, Alan Mann, Steve Chalke’s co-author of The Lost Message of Jesus, stated that, although Chalke clearly does not believe in penal substitution, he (Mann) does. He appeared genuinely to regret the language used in The Lost Message and wished to make clear that although he disagreed with some of the caricatures of the doctrine that he had heard, he did not wish to deny more careful articulations of it.

As David Hilborn, the chair of this final session, noted, Mann thus stood in marked contrast to Chalke. After speaking at the start of the conference, Chalke left and did not return. Hilborn therefore expressed the surprise and disappointment felt by many of the delegates that Chalke should call for dialogue, but then not stay to listen himself.

Mixed feelings

Thus, the conference left this reviewer with very mixed feelings. It was encouraging because the arguments over what the Bible teaches, and the significance of the doctrine of the atonement, were clearly won by advocates of penal substitution. At no stage did critics of the doctrine even attempt to answer replies to their criticisms. It was also encouraging that, judging by comments and questions from the floor, most people at the conference believed in penal substitution. If the conference accurately reflects the state of British evangelicalism, there is cause for hope.

However, at another level, the conference was deeply dissatisfying. LST has a noble history as an evangelical college. It was therefore desperately sad that the two LST lecturers who gave presentations (McFarlane and Steve Motyer, who gave an exegetical paper on Hebrews) both explicitly denied penal substitution. This provided a sobering reminder that even the most venerable evangelical institution is not immune from doctrinal slippage. It also demonstrated a marked contrast with the current health of Oak Hill, whose lecturers Mike Ovey and Garry Williams both rigorously defended penal substitution at the conference.

This will not do

It is also sad that EA appears willing to permit people who deny a core evangelical belief to continue as members. In conversation over lunch, Derek Tidball, the Principal of LST and Chair of the Alliance’s Council, argued that, although he personally believes in penal substitution, and although the EA Basis of Faith teaches it, it would be wrong to say that those who have publicly and unrepentantly denied the doctrine do not believe the Basis of Faith. But this will not do: penal substitution is clearly taught in Scripture, and so evangelicals should be glad to take a stand in upholding the truth of what Christ accomplished for us on the cross.

Finally, the conference presents a reminder that we must return again and again to the prayerful study of Scripture. It was striking and sad that, at an evangelical conference, the treatment of Scripture was on occasion remarkably poor, even non-existent. Opponents of penal substitution seemed genuinely flummoxed when their views were challenged from Scripture. And, with the notable exception of Simon Gathercole’s contribution on Romans 3.25-26, the exegetical papers were very weak. If our doctrine of the Atonement is not drawn from the pages of Scripture, it has no right to the name Christian, let alone evangelical. And, as this Symposium reaffirmed, Scripture teaches that God, in the Person of his incarnate Son, endured the penalty for sin, and so reconciled his people to himself. This is indeed good news. Woe betide evangelicals if we neglect it for the sake of maintaining an unholy alliance.

Matthew Mason,
curate of St John's Church, Tunbridge Wells

The EA symposium