Not At-one-ment

Bad: Adrian's Blog: Word Alive and Spring Harvest to Separate After 15 Years Because of the Atonement.

Go and re-read Ephesians chapter 4 and tell me how this could be anything but a tragic mess and complete failure on both sides to grasp the message of the Gospel. How, in God's name, could Adrian do anything but weep at this development.

Even my ordinary dictionary defines Atonement as Christian Theology. The reconciliation of God and mankind [ed: ugh, should be humankind] through the death of Jesus Christ. Origin C16 from at one + -ment

Pity that both Word Alive and Spring Harvest have both totally lost the plot (and supported in that it seems by Adrian) on what at one + -ment actually means.

Wake up folks! Go back to your Bibles and rediscover grace, reconciliation and unity as theme central to Christian faith.

Good: PamBG's Blog: Atonement, Justice and Reciprocity.

Good: How these Christians hate one another | Ekklesia.

Good: Turbulent Cleric: More on that Jeffrey John sermon.

Notice how both Pam, Simon and Paul start from actually reading and listening to others rather than leaping to wrong conclusions as Adrian's article sadly still demonstrates and as I tried to point out in 42: Do not read before slamming.

Also go and read Dean's atonement talk resulted in abuse and obscenity | Ekklesia which actually demonstrates clearly how Jeffrey John's talk is standard Church of England teaching. I am including the text of his letter to the Church Times newspaper (taken from the Ekklesia post).

The most recent statement by the Church of England on the meaning of the Cross is the Doctrine Commission’s report The Mystery of Salvation (Church House Publishing, 1995). It restates the view of the 1938 Commission that “the notion of propitiation as the placating by man of an angry God is definitely unchristian” (p. 213).

It also observes that “the traditional vocabulary of atonement with its central themes of law, wrath, guilt, punishment and acquittal, leave many Christians cold and signally fail to move many people, young and old, who wish to take steps towards faith. These images do not correspond to the spiritual search of many people today and therefore hamper the Church’s mission.”

Instead, it recommends that the Cross should be presented “as revealing the heart of a fellow-suffering God” (p. 113).

On Wednesday of Holy Week, I broadcast a Radio 4 talk that was exactly in line with this guidance. The talk, however, was publicly condemned beforehand by the Bishops of Durham, Lewes, and Willesden — none of whom had heard or read the full text — on the basis of a partial and inflammatory preview supplied by The Sunday Telegraph, which published an article with the scandalously false headline: “Easter message: Christ did not die for our sins”.

As a result, before the talk was even broadcast, I received a deluge of hate-filled messages. Most of them referred to my sexuality, and many were abusive and obscene.

I have now received another deluge of messages from people who actually heard the broadcast, overwhelmingly of thanks, including many from people who, like me, were held back from faith by crude presentations of the theory of penal substitution.

These messages confirm the Doctrine Commission’s diagnosis. Ugly, illogical explanations of the Cross hamper mission, and need to be counteracted with explanations that concentrate on God’s identification with human suffering.

The crucifixion did not placate an angry God and change his mind. The Trinity is not divided. Of course Christ died for our sins; but the price is paid not to God, but by God. God in Christ took all the consequences of our fallenness on himself, and, in the supreme demonstration of his love for us, made the ultimate, once-for-all sacrifice of himself which unites us eternally to him.

That is the doctrine the Church has urged us to preach, and we must not be intimidated from preaching it.

Amen!

Comments

[dave]

Aren't you reading a little much into our english word... it's spelling isn't what defines the meaning of atonement...

Atonement brings us into relationship with God - as 1 Peter 3:18 makes very clear by the righteous Jesus' taking the place of the unrighteous us.

Yes also wonderfully unity with one another - but both of those are the basis of what the cross achieves - this is precisely the issue on which unity and disunity must happen (thankfully bridging so many of the historic minor causes for division, as illustrated by the endorsements on Pierced for our Transgressions)

Christian unity is based on something - and that thing is the blood of Jesus, isn't it?

[Dave Warnock]

Dave,

I am not sure I understand your point. The definition makes it clear that atonement is about reconciliation of humankind with God through the cross. The way the word came about was to demonstrate that reconciliation resulted in being at one with God.

I have looked at all the articles that you have linked to. I have not yet got a copy of pierced for our transgressions - although I will order a copy.

I do accept that penal substitution is a valid model of atonement but I do not accept that it is the only one (and you have to ignore a great deal of Christian tradition to claim that it is).

I do not accept that it is always taught well and therefore I believe that it can lead to people having bad and inaccurate images of God (because it is one model and not the complete picture of atonement).

I do not accept that those who find that the violence in this method does not speak to them of God reconciling humankind through the cross are evil, lost or necessarily not evangelical.

I do believe that using a single model of atonement to divide the church is unscriptural and wrong.

No I do not think Christian unity is just based on the blood of Christ. It is based on the whole kaboosh from creation, through the incarnation (God becoming human - that should have a huge impact on how we perceive what it is to be human), through the teaching of Jesus, yes absolutely through his death for us on the cross, also through his resurrection and ascension. Finally Christian unity also depends on the creative work of the Father and the power of the Spirit (both resident and president in our lives).

It seems to me that Ephesians 4 that I have referred to before is a classic case of scripture requiring unity that comes from the totally of a divine Christ and all that it means through his birth, life, death, resurrection and ascension.

I do not see division as a sign of purity or correctness. More a sign of lack of faith, lack of the presence and authority of the spirit, lack of maturity, lack of grace and particularly a lack of reform (particularly sad that even as humour Tim Suffield can see a split as reform - a split is the opposite of reform which means to change something not to give up, run away and start something separate).

[PamBG]

Actually "at-one-ment" isn't a "reading into" the word.

From Stephen Sykes book, "The Story of Atonement":

"The etymology of 'atonement' is fascinating. 'At one' has been an adverbial phrase in English since the early fourteenth century, meaning, as now, an existence in harmony or friendship. 'To one' was formerly used as a verb, signifying to make one or to unite. 'Onement' was used as a noun by Wycliffe in the fourteenth century. 'Atonement', for which there is evidence from the early sixteenth century, took the place of 'onement'. More (1478-1535) and Tyndale (1494-1536) used 'atonement', the latter to translate both Leviticus 23:28 (a reference to the Day of Atonement) and 2 Corinthians 5:18-19....(omitting text of 2 Corinthians)...From 1611 the King James 'Authorised' Version replaced 'atonement' with 'reconciliation'."

[dave]

I bow to your superior etymological knowledge. Agreed that our unity is about the whole story - I guess I'm wanting to say that penal substitution (properly, carefully, biblically defined) is pretty central to it... and thus to our unity in the Spirit.

[PamBG]

dave -

I think you're going to have to actually spell out your assumptions for me.

Because I agree with everything you say in your first comment here, but I don't believe in PSA. The leap from your first post to this second remark about PSA being central is a connection I can't make.

I'm assuming that you believe "no PSA, no atonement", but I need to understand how you get to that conclusion. Remember that I'm not steeped in Calvinist theology and ideas that seem obvious to you may be ones I've never heard of.

My objection to various forms of PSA is the idea of retributive justice. Jeffrey Johns was addressing that in his Radio 4 programme and I've addressed it in my blog post. I know that J.I. Packer holds PSA whilst expressly condemning retributive justice, but I then actually have a problem seeing how his view is PSA (other than his desire to stay within the conservative Calvinist fold.)

[dave]

my assumptions... yes that 'psa' is central to atonement but certainly not the only thing in our picture of atonement - but i do think everything flows out from this.

i'm assuming the goal of atonement is to bring us to God and to one another.

i want to assume that the Ephesians 4 unity of the Spirit is what we aim for and that this is the same unity the son win's in a wrath bearing death in ch1-2 of the same letter...

does that help...

[PamBG]

So you're just basically weighing in as someone who thinks PSA is necessary to being a Christian?

I assume that the goal of atonement is to bring God and humanity together too.

I don't assume that "unity in the spirit" means that everyone has identical theology down to a detailed level. It rather seems to me that Ephesians 4 is saying that everyone has different gifts that they bring to the church. I assume that vv 3 and 4 assume that unity may actually have to be an effort of will and take some forebearance.

[Peter Kirk]

In case anyone doesn't get the trackback, I have commented on this post and on Pam's on my own blog.

[Dave]

"I don't assume that "unity in the spirit" means that everyone has identical theology down to a detailed level."

Neither do I, but I do think that Christian Unity has some content. There are many levels at which I'm happy to unite when there is theological difference.

I agree that vv3 & 4 prove that unity is hard - but the ch5 particularly suggests this has to do with Christlike character (which is vital in this current dispute) since the achievement of the cross is inseparable from the substance of our unity. We must make every effort to unity and get every help the Holy Spirit gives to do that. My hope is that the Holy Spirit not only changes character but also grows our convictions about the gospel closer towards what he has previously spoken.

In sketch form... We, like Christ, we under wrath... we like Christ now raised, we like Christ now seated... we in Christ united and blessed in every way. (ch1-2...) - union with Christ pushes 'psa' centrally rather than merely a matter we're free to differ on.

[Peter Kirk]

Dave (Bluefish), I'm glad we can agree that "There are many levels at which I'm happy to unite when there is theological difference." The problem I have is when so many people try to make an exception in that they refuse to unite with anyone who doesn't sign up to Charles Hodge's 19th century definition of the atonement, as if this is the one non-negotiable of the faith. And all the more so when you find that Stott and Packer don't really accept it, but people conveniently ignore the criticisms of those who have the reputation of being "sound" and use more careful language than Steve Chalke.

[Dave]

I've no idea what Hodge's definition of the atonement is... it's dirty tricks to try and say that penal substitution is a recent innovation. 'Pierced for our transgressions' responds to this is at some length.

Penal Substutution is not 'the' one non-negotiable of the faith. It is 'just' the hot issue today. 'Psa' is one of a number of non-negotiables. I can give you several others :) and equally a number of things that are very much 'negotiable' or 'agree-to-disagree' matters.

I know your angle on one quote from Stott (from comments on Adrian's blog) but I really don't think that your interpretation is what he's intending to say in that chapter. And I think we should note that he was writing into a context 20 years ago rather than to today's critics. Postmodern bible reading is in full flow when Stott is called on as a critic of 'psa'.

This isn't however about Hodge, Packer or Stott.

[Peter Kirk]

Bluefish, you condemn yourself out of your own mouth for "Do not read before slamming". If you had read what Steve Chalke has written to explain the view of the atonement he has rejected, the article which Ben recommended to me and I have linked to on Adrian's blog and my own, you would know very well what Hodge's view of the atonement is. You have asserted that Chalke's view of the atonement is different from Stott's without reading what Chalke actually has to say about his view. I'm not asking you to buy and read a whole book, just read a four page online article.

Meanwhile, is it fair to say that it was OK for Stott to say something 20 years ago but it is not OK for Chalke to say more or less the same thing 3 years ago? Is truth not unchanging?

[PamBG]

Dave (bluefish): I cannot believe that justice equals violent retribution (back to Dave W's second post), therefore I cannot believe in PSA.

I don't believe in violent retribution because I believe that Jesus taught against violent retribution. I believe that if I've seen Jesus I've seen the Father. Therefore I connect the two things and say that I don't believe that the Father approves of violent retribution let alone that he makes violent retribution the mechanism at the locus of the salvation of the universe.

I see this as a detail of disagreement. If you think that this is so substantive that I am clearly damned and/or outside of the Kingdom and the Church, then I'm just going to accept your opinion.

I've had too many conversations with people who believe as you do to think that I'm going to be able to make a case for my argument. And I remain astounded that people read the bible and see destructive violence as being at the heart of soteriology.

[Dave Warnock]

To Dave (bluefish) from Dave (42),

I think that Pam and Peter have answered you better than I can.

Love, peace and grace to you.

Dave

Pam and Peter, great comments, thanks.

[PamBG]

One question I have to ask myself: did God create people who cannot abide violence in order to damn them? Just a thought. It would seem a particularly nasty thing for God to do.

[Dave Warnock]

Pam,

Now that thought is going to stay with me.

Dave

[dave]

I'm getting the feeling you've had enough of talking about this...

Where did we start talking about 'violent retribution'?

I read Chalkes paper when it was published - sorry I'd not read it more recently, nor recalled that he talked about Hodge. It's true that I've not read LMOJ itself and that's why I've mostly kept out of the debate. Whilst I don't really want to debate what he has said - with the exception of RTC, we can talk about The Bible - cos I have read that... and Stott for that matter who once more does not deny penal substitution...

So Chalke says..

"As Scripture says ‘he was wounded for our transgressions, by his stripes we are
healed’ (Isaiah 53:5), and for me that is enough"

And I want to say... why the editting of two lines from the quote?

"But He was wounded for our transgressions,
He was bruised for our iniquities;
The chastisement for our peace was upon Him,
And by His stripes we are healed."

Removing the two lines that speak of the servant suffering punishment for our sin...

Line after line in Redeeming the Cross I disagree with Chalke's straw-man tactics and his logic...

But this I agree with strongly:

"Erroneous theology will always lead to dysfunctional missiology"

One way or another, this really matters.

[PamBG]

dave (bluefish)

I do not understand myself or Dave W to be defending Steve Chalke's book, so I'm wondering why you seem to be focussing your conversation on Chalke's book?

Do you think that because Dave and I don't believe in PSA that we agree 100% with Chalke? Or do you think that we weren't thinking about our theology of atonement before Chalke wrote his book? I suspect that Chalke used the term "divine child abuse" because he'd heard other people use it; that term has been going around for at least a decade (and I'd not be surprised if it was going around for longer).

I don't think that Chalke was attacking a straw-man. He was addressing sentences that I'll bet the vast majority of people get told about the cross. I know I've been told it many times during my life.

Since the book the cry amongst conservative evangelicals seems to be "That's not the correct way to express PSA". Well, if it's not the correct way to express PSA then, for goodness sakes, tell preachers and Sunday school teachers to stop teaching it, especially to children.

Where the term "violent retribution" came from was me. I was telling you what my problem is with PSA and - with all due respect to Steve Chalke - I don't care what his theory of atonement is. I haven't set out to copy him, simply to think about the issue in light of my wider theology.

[Peter Kirk]

Pam, it was perhaps my fault to redirect the discussion on to Chalke's book, the one which Bluefish was slamming elsewhere without reading.

Bluefish, Isaiah 53:5, even if quoted in full, does not state that God punished Jesus. The words are mexolal "pierced, wounded", medukka' "crushed", musar "discipline", and xabura "stripe, blow". Only the third of these can possibly have a penal significance, but its common use in Proverbs is not so much penal as corrective. Also note that the verbs here are passive and do not state that God was the agent of any of this, something which is in fact denied by the "But" at the beginning of the verse which clearly contrasts with the misunderstanding "we considered him punished by God" (53:4 TNIV).

If indeed "Since the book the cry amongst conservative evangelicals seems to be "That's not the correct way to express PSA"", then the people making this cry are in fact saying exactly the same as Chalke. So why is he being condemned? Either Chalke has spoken against a false presentation of PSA, in which case he should be commended, or what he has spoken against is the true doctrine, in which case why are the conservatives distancing themselves from it?

[Dave Warnock]

Important article by NT Wright to read Fulcrum: The Cross and The Caricatures Note he explores 3 things that have been flashpoints in this debate: Steve Chalke (and he actually checked out with Steve what he meant), Jeffrey John, and the book "Pierced for our Transgressions".

Very interesting.

His challenges to Jeffrey John are important, especially now he has read the transcript properly.

His challenges to "Pierced for our Transgressions" are also important, especially his description of the book as "sub-biblical" given the way it almost totally ignores the gospels.

Go read (meanwhile I am off to an extraordinary church council).

BTW hat tip to Pam: NT Wright on the Atonement

[thebluefish]

Part of the probelm here is that we have 4 people on two blog threads. I'm getting confused. I suspect that's why we're talking past each other in places.

I didn't turn to Chalke - I've not read his book, only his article in which he's clear about his beliefs. He's clear about what he think's Hodge etc believe which looks like a nasty caricature... and his alternative is not what I think biblical 'psa' looks like. But really Chalke isn't the point for me.

NT Wright makes some interesting points - the new perspective seems to feel misrepresented even more than conservative evangelicals... I think PFOC could give more space to the gospel than it does - but you have to edit somethings. I suspect given what I gather about the broader issues raised by Chalke they and others like Liam Goligher should have responded with more than just clear teaching on the Cross. But - if Chalke, Jeffery John et al are so convinced that their caricature is what people do believe then someone has got to restate it clearly. And that has to be done from all parts of scripture not just Romans 3... In a sense every book is sub-Biblical and I guess NTW was hoping that passages that weren't addressed would have been.

[Dave Warnock]

"I think PFOC could give more space to the gospel than it does - but you have to edit somethings."

Starting by editing out Jesus is certainly an interesting viewpoint for an evangelical, don't you think?

Sorry, could not resist. It may well not be fair but it is an amusing (or terrifying depending on your point of view) accusation.