Today, we move on to speak about the atonement controversy and the state of the Church today.

There is no doubt that it has been a difficult time in the Evangelical movement on both sides of the Atlantic in recent years. There have been numerous arguments about what the definition of an Evangelical should be and how closely we can work together with people who disagree with us about a range of issues. In the UK, for example, these arguments erupted within the Spring Harvest/Word Alive partnership and have led to the formation of a new conference, New Word Alive, which appears headed for a second highly successful year in 2009.

In the USA, one attempt to define an Evangelical is a manifesto which has received some criticim from leaders such as Al Mohler. The UK's Evangelical Alliance has a definition on their website, and the outgoing leader, Joel Edwards, has recently set forth the Alliance's vision for the future in a book, Agenda for Change. Currently that organization holds together some 7,000 churches across the UK. Joel Edwards has steered the Alliance through some fierce controversy over the years, arguing strongly that the charismatic churches should be seen as part of the mainstream and has avoided a potential split in the organization over Steve Chalke.

There are, of course, many questions about the future direction of the Alliance, and Christians in the UK do need to pray for its Board as it considers who should take the place of the much respected Joel Edwards. I asked the EA for comments about how they plan to select a new General Secretary. Mike Talbot, Chair of the Evangelical Alliance board, said:

“A very clear vision has been set under Joel’s leadership, which focuses the Alliance’s work, and will continue to do so as the new General Director is appointed.

We recognize this is a crucial appointment and that many in the evangelical world have a keen interest in Joel’s successor.

The Evangelical Alliance board members responsible for the appointment have been prayerfully consulting with a wide range of member organizations as they seek to discern God’s will for the future, and their next step is to work on the job description before advertising the post.

The Alliance has a strong leadership team, who will work with the board to run the Alliance until the new General Director is appointed.”

UPDATE
The written transcript of this video is now available and can be accessed here.

At the recent New Word Alive conference I was able to record a four-part interview with John Piper. John rarely gives interviews of any form, so it was a real privilege, and one that I hope you will enjoy.

Dr. Piper asked that we begin with prayer. His humble request of God that, for the sake of others, he would help us in our conversation was no mere lifeless routine. Here is a man who oozes the presence of God even when you are with him in such conversational moments. I found it challenging and stimulating to spend a little bit of time with him at the conference.

I began by asking him what brought him to this conference in Wales. He spoke of his surprise at realizing he seemed to have a broad appeal in the UK. He is welcomed to speak at a wide range of conferences from different backgrounds. He said that he was both “contaminated by the charismatic” and “a seven-point Calvinist.”

He described how he felt drawn to help in the process of realignment that is going on in UK evangelicalism at the moment. He spoke about the previous differences with Spring Harvest, which together with his discussions with the authors of Pierced For Our Transgressions, had made him especially keen to help the organizers of New Word Alive.

John said he was keen to do what he could to draw exegetically serious Bible, gospel people together—whether charismatic or not.

This interview will be continued tomorrow.

This is the second part of a three-part interview I did with Bishop Wallace Benn at the New Word Alive conference last week. You can read part 1 here.

In this segment, the Bishop discusses his total commitment to the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement, and gives some reasons why PSA "is central to a proper understanding of the gospel."

Adrian
You just mentioned a high view of the cross. For those people who might not understand what all that means, would you mind unpacking that for a moment?

Wallace Benn
Those who founded Word Alive, and Word Alive through the years, and now New Word Alive, are totally committed to the penal substitutionary view of the atonement. That is, that Jesus died as our substitute and our sin-bearer—that you and I deserve to be on the cross.

One of the lovely things (I don’t know if you know this) in Mel Gibson’s film, The Passion of the Christ, he was asked whether he took any part in the film, having directed it. And he said, “Well, only one. It’s my hand that holds the nails that crucified Christ in the film.” That’s a profound and right insight—that he died, not just for the whole world, but he died for ME! And actually it was understanding that which was the means of my conversion.

So, not only did Jesus die as our sin-bearing substitute, but in so doing, he took the wrath of God against our sin. He actually took our place, and the righteous judgment of God against sin Jesus dealt with. Without that, you and I would be hopeless in a very literal sense—actually without any hope at all. So I have no sympathy whatsoever with people who want to water that down for entirely wrong reasons, in my opinion. I think that’s central to a proper understanding of the gospel.

Adrian
We certainly haven’t seen any watering down of that here, have we?

Wallace Benn
No, absolutely not!

Adrian
Speaker after speaker has been crystal clear.

Wallace Benn
I’m absolutely delighted to affirm it. It’s a great joy to me to see that done.

Adrian
Yes, I think that’s right. There is obviously a joining of hands of people who all feel the same way. It’s not a minority position at all, is it?

Wallace Benn
Not at all!

Adrian
When you have, for example, that list (I think your name is on it)—that list of people who affirmed that particular book, Pierced for Our Transgressions, it’s almost like a Who’s Who of Christianity. I know there were some people who didn’t affirm it, but the number of people who did, from all kinds of different backgrounds—you might say, "Surely those two groups aren’t even talking to each other!"— and yet they both would look up and say, “No, this is the gospel!”

Wallace Benn
It was a pleasure to be one of those whose name was associated with that magnificent book, truly. That’s great to see.

Adrian
Absolutely. And it’s not as though that’s the only book either, is it? There are a lot of books out there that say the same thing basically.

Wallace Benn
I’m an old student of J. I. Packer, who thirty years ago wrote a magnificent defense of the penal substitutionary idea of the atonement. That view of the cross is the classic evangelical view, and if we move away from it, we move away from the teaching of the Bible. We move away from the teaching of our forefathers in terms of an understanding of the gospel. There are many other things you can say about the cross—there isn’t only one thing you can say about the cross. But those of us who are here believe that penal substitution is the glue that holds all the other things together.

Adrian
That’s a lovely way of putting it actually, isn’t it?

Continued in part 3 . . .

Here are some interviews I recorded with people around the site here in North Wales to gauge the response to John Piper's sermon on suffering. I end the clip with some of my own thoughts this morning after having slept on it overnight.

Today I can finally reveal that No. 1 on the list of most-read posts on this blog appeared on April 2, 2006, and was my interview with Mark Driscoll, the pastor of Mars Hill Church in Seattle, Washington.

Thanks to my friends at Crossway, a free copy of Mark Driscoll's new book, Vintage Jesus, will be winging its way to Vince, who e-mailed the correct answer, Hugh, who blogged it, Terry B, who guessed wrong, and Craig who deserves a prize for persistence.

Back in April 2006, I had only recently heard of Mark Driscoll. When we conducted this interview, he was already prompting quite a significant response online, and as the months progressed, he would become probably the most talked-about preacher on the Internet. Other recent and popular posts on my blog about Mark Driscoll include:

• Mark Driscoll, Terry Virgo, and Shepherding God's People
  
  
• Driscoll on the Defeat of Shame and the Scotland MP3s
  
  
• Mark Driscoll Preaches On the Atonement in Edinburgh, Scotland
  
  
• Mark Driscoll at Menmakers in Scotland
  
  
• Mark Driscoll Apologizes for Not Being Humble
  
  
• Mark Driscoll Firm, But Kind, About Joel Osteen on Prosperity Teaching
  
  
• Mark Driscoll in Christianity Today

I have also listed ways of obtaining Mark Driscoll's sermons online at "Audio Sermons: Mark Driscoll—The Charismatic With a Seat Belt."

It is an absolute pleasure to welcome to my blog, Mark Driscoll. Mark is known for having a prominent role in the early days of the Emergent movement, and for his rapidly growing Mars Hill Church. More recently, via his new venture, Resurgence, he has made an explosive entry into the Christian blog-world, which some have likened to none other than The Pyromaniac himself. More posts about Mark Driscoll are linked at the end of this article. You can also visit my interview with Wendy Alsup, a deacon at Mark Driscoll's church.

Adrian
So, Mark, tell us a bit about yourself and your ministry . . .

Mark
I was born in 1970 to a hard-working blue-collar construction worker dad. I was raised Irish Catholic, but did not know Jesus until God saved me while reading Romans in college at the age of 19. Shortly thereafter, God spoke to me, telling me to plant a church, train men, preach the Bible, and marry my girlfriend, who was a Christian I dearly loved. I married Grace at the age of 21, graduated with a degree in Speech at 22, moved back to my hometown of Seattle, and launched Mars Hill Church at the age of 25. Today I am the father of five children and remain one of the elders at Mars Hill Church.

Adrian
In my first post about you I said, "Mars Hill is one of those unique churches that is probably too emerging for some evangelicals to cope with, much too traditional for the emerging folks, too charismatic for the reformed folks, and too reformed for the average charismatic. It's a wonder anyone likes the church! Actually, the more I read of Mark the more he sounds like he is making his home in the same kind of center ground that my own church tries to occupy." Do you recognize that description of yourself—do you sometimes feel like something of a theological misfit?

Mark
I am a theological misfit and have learned to be okay with that. We are missional, which offends fundamentalists. We hold to the fundamentals, which offends the liberals. We are theologically charismatic, but not shake and bake holy rollers, which puts us in the middle of a big debate to be shot by both sides. We are reformed, but not old school, and don't baptize babies, don't hold to the regulative principle, and won't die on the hill of Limited Atonement, but hold a more unlimited/limited position, which upsets both sides of the debate. In the end, I hold to a high view of inerrant Scripture and am trying to be biblical, even when it makes a mess of my systematics.

Adrian
What other groups or individuals can you look at and say, "Yeah, they seem to have got it—I can follow them"? Who would you say have been your main influences?

Mark
I learn a lot from John Piper, D. A. Carson, Wayne Grudem, and Tim Keller. The dead guys I like tend to be Puritans and early church fathers. I also am a huge Spurgeon fan, and read every biography I can get on him. I love biographies and learn from the lives of Calvin, Luther, Aquinas, Augustine, Patrick, etc. . . .

Read more . . . Interview With Mark Driscoll

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?"

May was not as controversial a month as I reported yesterday that April had been. I continued with the following posts on the atonement and the resurrection throughout May and also into June. In fact, there were a few posts on the atonement which spilled into July, and I have listed them here also. If that's not enough for you on this vital subject, remember to look at my April review which lists a lot more!

• John Stott on the Atonement—The Conclusion
• Terry Virgo On the Results of the Cross
• C. J. Mahaney on the Cross
• Tom Schreiner on the Atonement
• Spurgeon on the Atonement
• Wayne Grudem on the Atonement
• A Limited Atonement? Did Jesus Die For All?
• J. I. Packer on the Atonement
• The Atonement—A Quiz
• Penal Substitutionary Atonement—Precious Gospel or Divine Child Abuse?
• Brian McLaren Supports Steve Chalke About the Cross
• The Atonement and the Resurrection—It's All About Jesus
• The Atonement—Jesus' Death Is Not Repeated at Communion
• The Atonement—Don't Forget the Blood of Christ
• Are You Still A Sinner?
• Is the Cross a Legal Fiction? No, Because the Resurrection Changes Us
• The Atonement—Is Penal Substitution the Only Thing That Happened at the Cross?
• Christianity Magazine Reviews Pierced For Our Transgressions
• The Atonement—Is Jesus the Good Cop?
• The Atonement—What Does Imputation Mean?
• Jonathan Edwards on the Resurrection
• The Atonement—What Did Jesus Die From?
• The Atonement—2 Corinthians 5
• Atonement—Jesus Thought He Was Fulfilling Isaiah 53
• The Atonement—Isaiah 53
• Resurrection Sunday—The Commission of the Risen Christ
• Sam Storms Reviews Pierced For Our Transgressions
• Atonement—Who is Preaching Another Gospel?
• The Atonement—What Happened to Jesus on the Cross?
• Resurrection Empowered Life—The Deposit Guaranteeing Our Inheritance
• Penal Substitutionary Atonement Summarized in Romans 15
• The Atonement in Romans 12-14
• Resurrection Empowered Life—Dying to Live
• John Piper Friday—Christ's Obedient Life and Death Entwined
• The Atonement in Romans 9-11
• The Atonement in Romans 8
• Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones and Separating Over the Atonement
• Resurrection Empowered Life—Raised With Christ
• John Piper Friday—Romans and the Reason for the Atonement
• The Atonement—Romans 6-7 and Penal Substitutionary Atonement
• The Atonement—Romans 4-5 on Penal Substitutionary Atonement
• The Atonement—Romans 1-3 and Penal Substitutionary Atonement
• Atonement—The Angry God of the Bible
• N. T. Wright on Paul and the Resurrection Empowered Life

May and June were also the months I began to introduce my readers to the leader of the family of churches of which I am a part. I did a multi-part inteview with Terry Virgo, shared two of his sermons, and introduced his blog in these posts:

• Terry Virgo Preaches on Ephesians 4
• Terry Virgo Preaches on Jesus' First Miracle
• Terry Virgo Starts a Blog
• Terry Virgo On Healings, Driscoll, and Theology
• Amazing Grace on a Wedding Day

I highlighted a post on a subject that would later in the year lead to the first full-scale blog debate between some of my heroes of the faith. It was slightly cheeky, and I suppose the possibility of a challenge by others was implicit in Mark Dever and Ancient Baptistries. I was also very provoked by a post I quoted from Gandalf's blog, Why Do We All Like Jesus?

I very much enjoyed talking with Liam Goligher, in a wide-ranging multi-part interview, as well as The Authors of Pierced for Our Transgressions.

I also put out a plea which remains out there for anyone with old messages from Downs Bible Week, C. J. Mahaney, and Others to contact me. In particular, I am interested in messages by my old mentor, Henry Tyler.

Also in May I was fascinated to come across a sound bite that has lived with me since—"We need to show the people we understand what it's like to be unbelievers."

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.

You can count on John Owen to bring some light and clarity into a debate. The following lightly edited quote was sent in by a reader and is really helpful:

"That which we affirm is that our sins were so transferred on Christ as that thereby he became responsible to God and liable to punishment in the justice of God for them. He was perfectly innocent in himself; but took our guilt on him, or our liability to punishment for sin. He may be said to be the greatest debtor in the world, who never borrowed nor owed one farthing on his own account, if he became guarantor for the greatest debt of others . . .

In order to declare the righteousness of God in this setting forth of Christ to be a propitiation and to bear our iniquities, the guilt of our sins was transferred to him in an act of the righteous judgement of God accepting and evaluating him as the guilty person—as it is with a guarantor in every case . . .

If this be not so, I desire to know what is become of the guilt of the sins of believers. If it were not transferred onto Christ, it remains still upon themselves, or it is nothing. It will be said that guilt is taken away by the free pardon of sin. But if that were so, there was no need of punishment for it at all—for if punishment is not for guilt, it is not punishment."

This is from page 200 of volume 5 of Owen's "The Doctrine of Justification by Faith Through the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ Explained, Confirmed and Vindicated." (!!)

My reader said slightly cheekily, "I love the way Puritans give the game away in the title to their books. At least you know where he would be coming from in a discussion with Bishop N. T. Wright without having to read his book!"

The MP3s of three talks from Mark Driscoll's recent visit to Scotland are now online. The first one is the only one I was there for, and for which I wrote notes.

God's Plan for the Church in This City (right click to download MP3).

Sex—A Study of the Good Bits from the Song of Solomon by Mark Driscoll (right click to download MP3).

The Gospel We Preach—A Message for Leaders by Mark Driscoll (right click to download MP3).

Driscoll is an important voice for the Church today. One thing he addressed in his well-rounded talk on the cross was the notion that Jesus died to take our shame. I came across the following post which demonstrates both the rarity of preaching that addresses this and its importance. Rik Fleming was undone by Mark Driscoll:

"On Sunday morning I was watching a sermon on the internet by Mark Driscoll titled “The Cross of Christ.” Something in this sermon got through to me for the very first time. Perhaps I have heard this before, but it had never been rooted in my mind and soul before now.

The truth of the gospel is this: Jesus not only took upon Himself my guilt, my sin, and God’s wrath for it on the cross—he also took upon himself throughout all of his suffering MY SHAME!

I have a B.A. in Biblical studies, an M.A. in theology, and I have a library full of books. Yet, somehow this truth had never gripped me.

Why?

I have 18 books on Systematic Theology and NOT ONE discusses shame or develops a doctrine of Christ in which is discussed how he has borne our shame. I have an entire shelf full of books on Christian counseling and yet not NOT ONE discusses the impact of shame on the mind of the victim and the sinner. (Perhaps I need to search for more books on the subject?)

The truth that Christ has borne our shame has significant implications for the believer—especially to those who have been sexually abused, molested as a child (like myself) or in other ways have been treated as less than a person who bears the image of God. Even more so, it is essential that those who have suffered such shame and then lived out of that shame by living in sin to understand this important aspect of Christ’s humiliation in the process of his crucifixion."

More information on the atonement is available in a series of MP3s from a recent UCCF student conference on the subject.

UPDATE The Audio of this talk is now available to download.

-----

Tonight's event took place in an ex-cinema, so I felt at home! It is the home of Destiny Church, Edinburgh. Destiny is a family of churches across Scotland, and they have some churches elsewhere in the world as well. The audience that gathered was a young one, and following an energetic time of worship, Mark Driscoll came to the platform to share with us. Here is a short video clip from the message. Following this, I will share my notes with you.

Mark spoke about the person of Jesus and his work on the cross. He said that he believed that it was important for preachers of the gospel from time to time to sit and hear the gospel.

He began in 1 Corinthians 2 — “... I resolved to know nothing when I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified ....” The only thing that must be preached is Jesus and him crucified. Apart from Jesus and his death, we have nothing to offer anyone.

It takes three generations to lose the gospel. One generation believes, the next assumes too much, and the third forgets it or denies it. We cannot assume anything. If we say Jesus, Bible, God, cross, sin—we must not assume that anyone has any idea what we are talking about!

Martin Luther said that in our preaching of the cross, we should “ ... beat it into their heads continually!”

Many traditions love one side of the jewel of Jesus' death. Mark believes we must appreciate eleven sides of the cross. We must also think of it in the context of Jesus' whole life—his incarnation, holy life, death, resurrection, and ascension. We need to emotionally encounter the significance of the crucifixion and all that it has accomplished for us. The Jews couldn't understand how God himself could be cursed by hanging on a tree.

It is perhaps the most amazing thing that has ever happened—that the cross should become the most popular symbol in human history. To call the day Jesus died “Good Friday” is also astonishing. We must understand the theological aspects of the cross.

ELEVEN ASPECTS OF THE ATONEMENT

1. The Central Theme—Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA)
   
   We cannot assume anything. A war is brewing over this issue. This is the issue we must be willing to fight over. If we lose this, we lose the gospel. Mark said that if you deny this, you have essentially lost the Christian faith. Isaiah 53:5 — “ ... FOR our transgressions.” Romans 5:8 — “Christ died FOR us.” 1 Corinthians 15:3 — “Christ died FOR our sins.” Sin results in death. In the Garden of Eden, our first parents sinned in our place. They substituted themselves for God—they made their own rules and lived as though they were God.
   
   As we substituted ourselves for God, God substituted himself for us to fix this. Sin is only atoned for in substitution — e.g. in the sacrifices of atonement.
   
   What does this mean practically? I MURDERED GOD! He died for MY sin! He paid MY penalty of death. As MY substitute he endured what I deserve in order to give me what I don't deserve. If you lose substitution, you lose all sense of gratitude.
   
   
2. Jesus is Our Victor
   
   Jesus conquered Satan and demons. We don't like demons, so this is a good thing! Colossians 2:13-15 — “ ... disarmed the rulers and authorities ...” It looks as if Jesus is defeated on the cross. Isaiah 45:15 — “God hides.” He hid victory in defeat because God is humble. Those who are proud (like Satan) don't see it! We aligned ourselves with Satan. Being "spiritual" is not good if it's not the Holy Spirit. Satan is real. There is a real war. Revelation 12:10 — Demons accuse people: “You are a loser; you are not a real Christian ...” The devil condemns people and haunts them with past sin. He loves death and wants to kill. Jesus cancelled the rights that Satan and demons have towards the children of God. He has been defeated and disarmed. There is victory over Satan and demons for the people of God.
   
   
3. Jesus is Our Redemption
   
   Don't teach this from the pagan slave market. Rather, speak about God redeeming his people from the slavery of Pharaoh—in slavery to sin. We can't stop. We are not free. We can't escape. But just like the people of Israel, we have been set free to worship God! We are liberated to live new lives. To have joy. To worship God together as his people.
   
   
4. Jesus is the New Covenant Sacrifice
   
   1 Peter —“... precious blood of Christ like that of a lamb.” Blood disgusts us. We must identify the horror of blood and death as sin. God is as disgusted with sin as we are with blood. God is horrified by sin. We should be as horrified by sin as we are by blood. God was the first person to shed blood in the Bible—to cover the sin of Adam. The Bible is a bloody book. The first thing Noah did after the flood was to sacrifice. Noah was not "a good guy." Noah found GRACE. He found unmerited grace, and then he became righteous. After the flood, it was as though Noah said, “God should have killed me, too”—that was why he had to offer a sacrifice. “I deserved to die.” He, of course, promptly went on to demonstrate why— by getting naked and drunk.
   
   Hebrews is clear on this. We don't need a temple or a priest or a lamb because we have Jesus. His blood was shed for our sins. When sinned against we often say, “I want blood!” Well, you already have it. The gospel is the good news that we should have died, but instead we are loved. So we must show love to others!
   
   
5. Jesus is Our Justification
   
   No one will be justified by works of the law. God would not be good if he let everyone into heaven. If he did that, when we got there it would be like earth, full of hatred and sin and evil. God's heart is gracious mercy and forgiveness. But because of his justice, he has to deal with our sin. God's standard is perfection. No one can say they are perfect. Lust counts as adultery and anger counts as murder. People want righteousness, which is why hard firm religions attract people. When you go to the bathroom, that's about how impressed I am with your righteousness. Our righteousness is described by the Bible as human excrement and menstrual rags. God hates religion. He despises it. You must call sinners to repentance, and also call "righteous" people to repent of their religious righteousness. Righteousness is GIFT righteousness. It is the righteousness of God. “Jesus was the most despised thing in all creation on the cross” (Luther). Righteousness only comes from faith in Christ. When we stand before God it will be imputed righteousness—that is what will appear on our resume. I trust Jesus.
   
   It doesn't end with imputed righteousness. He gives us a new heart and a new nature. This gives us a desire to do right things. He gives us new power through the Holy Spirit to live life. He gives us a fulfilling life. We are regenerated. We change.
   
   
6. Jesus is Our Propitiation
   
   Four times in the Greek New Testament. 1 John 4:10 — This is love—not that we have loved God. It's not because you are a good person that God loves you. You don't obey so God will love you; you obey because God already does love you!
   
   Propitiation is how God demonstrates his love. God hates sinners. You have been told that God loves sinners, but hates sin. No, Gandhi said that! God often says he hates people. We are by nature sinners. “I hate the essence sum and total of what you are, but I really love you.” We have a sinful nature and commit sins. “God hates all who do evil.” God hates a lot of people. God's wrath is mentioned more than 600 times in the Bible. More verses talk about the wrath of God than those which state that he loves us. The gospel starts with “God hates you and it's going to go really really bad forever and ever!” Jesus suffered the wrath of God, and it is thereby taken away from sinners who are in Jesus. The question is not, "How can a loving God send anyone to hell?" The real question is, "Why does a holy God take anyone to heaven?" The passover demonstrates the wrath of God passing over the ones covered by the blood of Jesus. Jesus is our passover Lamb.
   
   
7. Jesus is Our Expiation
   
   This is different from propitiation. Propitiation takes away our wrath. Expiation deals with our defilement. This is often overlooked. Sins have also been committed against us. In 1 John it says that Jesus' blood purifies us from all unrighteousness. Expiation deals with the feeling of being dirty, a feeling that is experienced by both sinners and those sinned against. “Dirty people do dirty things.” Our identity is sometimes about what people have done against us rather than what Jesus has done for us. Feeling defiled, feeling dirty, is a huge issue. The scapegoat was set free. Sin was laid on Jesus and it was taken away. The blood of Jesus CLEANSES us. We are clean. We are clothed in white by Jesus. We should see ourselves and others that way. We can be clean. We don't need to manage, shift blame, or excuse sin; rather we need to face it and deal with it.
   
   
8. Jesus is Our Ransom
   
   There is only one mediator. Music, Bible translations, etc. don't mediate. If the music changes, we can still worship God. We owe a debt to God. Every sin or omission is a debt. We have a mountain of debt. We cannot possibly pay it to God. Doing good for awhile doesn't reduce our debt, it just doesn't increase the amount of our debt! A mediator pays the debt on our behalf.
   
   
9. Jesus is Our Example
   
   1 Peter 2:21 and Philippians 2 — “Christus exemplar.” Jesus has always been God. He came into human history as man. How did Jesus live his life? It wasn't a fake—like Superman and Clark Kent— i.e. God can't be tempted. Jesus DOES sympathize with our weaknesses because he was tempted. Jesus did not cease to be God. He set aside the use of his divine attributes. God knows everything, but Jesus had to learn. How did he do it? It was by the power of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit filled Jesus. He was the Anointed One. All was done by the power of the Spirit. We can now also live Spirit-filled lives. Being spirit-filled means living the life of Jesus. We do what Jesus did. The Spirit led Jesus into temptation, into suffering. We suffer too (Philippians 1). We will be led into difficult times. We are perfected by our suffering, when we suffer like Jesus did, by the power of the Holy Spirit. Don't waste your pain or your suffering. Use it for a witness, use it for the gospel. Christians are like nails—the harder you hit us, the deeper we go.
   
   
10. Jesus is Our Reconciliation
    
    Sin separates us from God and each other. The cross brings us together. “... be kind ... forgiving one another as God forgave you ...” We are sinned against and either become bitter or become like Jesus. That is the choice we have. We often have two standards. When we sin, we want mercy; when others sin, we want hell. Bitterness is often caused by the person we love the most sinning in a little way against us. There are only two problems in a marriage—the man and the woman. We can either learn to forgive or let sin destroy our relationships. We can only be true community and reconciled in the cross. We need the Prince of Peace to know true peace.
    
    
11. Jesus is Our Revelation
    
    Who is God? Where do we begin? Start at the cross. Jesus