Oh dear.
Some historical background
A few years ago a popular evangelical Christian leader in the UK, Steve Chalke, together with a lesser-known co-author, Alan Mann, published a book called 'The Lost Message of Jesus' which was immediately controversial for its rejection of the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement. Chalke likened this doctrine to cosmic child abuse. Not unnaturally, evangelicals were concerned. Public debates were held and the Evangelical Alliance sponsored a symposium at which the keynote speaker was Joel B. Green, author of 'Recovering the Scandal of the Cross' in which he made the same point as Chalke in a (slightly) more carefully argued and theologically nuanced way. A number of objections against both a caricatured doctrine of PSA and the carefully articulated orthodox doctrine were made at the symposium, along the lines of : believing PSA endorses violence and hatred; PSA doesn't speak to the needs of society; people don't understand PSA. These were all carefully and persuasively refuted by Garry Williams who gave the final address of the symposium.
Steve Chalke spoke briefly at the first meeting of the symposium, outlining his position. He then left, too busy to have to hear anyone who disagreed with him. His co-author, Alan Mann, attended the whole event and at the final Q & A session made a public statement of his position in which he confirmed that he did hold to PSA, that he'd been glad to hear it defended at the symposium, and that he was sorry for having written the book in a way that made that unclear.
So now what's happened?
The debate rages in the UK. Before Easter, Canon Jeffery John (who was at the centre of controversy once before when he, a professed homosexual, was appointed as a bishop and then forced to refuse the office), published an article in which he also rejected PSA. Not surprising from a liberal like John. This is how the BBC reported the debate and gives an indication of the kind of nonsense being talked by many who should know better.
But here's where it all gets very odd, and profoundly disturbing. Tom Wright writes an article discussing a number of recent publications on PSA including Jeffrey John's statement and a book by three men from Oak Hill, Pierced for our Transgressions, in which they offer a defence of PSA.
Jeffrey John comes in for a well-deserved critique by Wright. He is accused of rejecting a caricature of the doctrine, rather than seeking to understanding the doctrine itself.
Steve Chalke, mentioned in the context of PFOT, comes in for a ringing endorsement. Apparently he does believe in PSA, though he'll only admit to it in private (I seem to remember Derek Tidball saying the same thing at the EA symposium).
Drs Ovey, Jeffery and Sach, authors of PFOT, are given a real run through the mill. Not enough biblical theology, especially of the new perspective kind. If only they'd read Wright, they'd understand. Their work is accused of being deeply unbiblical and is, for Wright, a springboard into a general, swingeing critique of evangelical thought. He pits evangelical tradition against the bible and argues that contemporary evangelicalism (in large part, accidentally, and unintentionally, but nevertheless so) has stopped its ears to the bible. You can find the authors' response to Wright's critique here.
I have no idea what prompted Wright to write this article in the way that he has done. He has been a friend of Oak Hill, participating in debates there in the fairly recent past. Though there remains some debate about the NPP at Oak Hill (as, to be fair, there is almost everywhere), his work is recognised as scholarly, thoughtful and, in many, many respects, enormously valuable. Of course PFOT is not the book Wright would have written on PSA. Perhaps he is right that a greater emphasis on biblical theology would make the point even more strongly. Probably he is right that evangelicals need to be challenged about their true commitment to the bible, rather than their own dearly held interpretations of it.
And yet, I cannot help wishing for a little more of the grace Wright extends to Steve Chalke (reading him extremely generously) to have been extended to Steve Jeffery, Andrew Sach, and Mike Ovey. I don't suppose their book is perfect, but I'm sure it's jolly good and I know it is a much needed counter to the kind of nonsense being talked by Jeffery John and many of the speakers at the EA symposium.
I blogged about Christian disagreement once before and I link to it again because it seems to me that Wesley and Whitefield remain such rare examples of grace and humility among brothers. Would that we would learn from them.
