On several occasions this year I’ve had the Steve Chalke/PSA debate with various people, I now realise that it’s probably not very sensible to simply label Chalke a ‘heretic’… but does it matter what Steve Chalke says, or what his theology is? Here are some thoughts about what I’ve been thinking on the issue, particularly in light of the previous post… go and read Cross Examined!

Penal Substitutory Atonement:

This is the issue being debated here. PSA is an understanding of the cross which says the God punished Jesus on the cross in our place, for our sin, this has been the traditional evangelical belief for years.

What we agree on:

God is love! We tend to get too busy rebuking the liberal position that says God is love and not a lot else to really hold this truth in our hearts, that it’s not just one of many characteristics of God, but his very nature is Love.

The cross is “multi-coloured rather than monochrome”, it’s easy to forget that there’s more to the cross than just “Jesus dying for our sins”, we can become too focused on the PSA side of the cross, ignoring it’s wider implications and example. Actually I believe PSA is the most important and essential aspect of the cross, but to ignore the other sides would be silly. Cross Examined, good book for looking at all “faces” to the cross.

What Steve Chalke has said:

Chalke has described PSA in at least 2 ways, both derogatory:
> Compared to ‘child abuse’
> Described as ‘pre-Christian’

He has also claimed that those who hold the belief that God is both love and wrath, to have no explanation for this seemingly contradictory position other than to call it a ‘divine paradox’. On top of this, he has said “Jesus believed in original goodness!” rejecting the doctrine of original sin and ‘Fall Theology’… but this is another huge issue.

Regardless of what you think about Jesus’ death on the cross, the fact that the all powerful, loving Father allows his Son to be tortured and executed is on it’s own ‘child abuse’ if you take Chalke’s view, the fact that according to PSA God causes this suffering is irrelevant. But in taking this view you have to ignore two crucial characteristics of God: his Holiness, which brings wrath against sin and ungodliness, and his Justice, which demands that sin is dealt with. In fact, Love does not nullify God’s wrath, but it epitomises it, the self-substituting God takes on himself the punishment that should be ours… that’s Love, no divine paradox!! There are many verses which implicitly or explicitly refer to PSA, one wonders how Chalke interprets Isaiah 53… “Yet it was the LORD’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer”

Chalke is right to point out that the idea of atonement is pre-Christian, but that does not stop it from being Christian. Anti-Semitism was pre-Nazi Germany, does that mean it didn’t exist in Nazi Germany? There seems to be an issue here of Chalke wanting to separate the God of the Old and New Testament into two different beings. I don’t want to talk theology here, there’s plenty of resources out there that do that a lot better… however, it is strange that many liberal drifting Christians want to distance themselves from the wrathful God of the Old Testament, yet Jesus is the one who speaks most often and openly about the coming judgement and hell!

If you accept Chalke’s beliefs then you end up drifting to a point with lots of unanswerable questions: did Jesus need to die? Will there ever be any justice for the world? If you can’t believe in hell, is there a heaven, does everyone go to heaven? The way Chalke rejects PSA inevitably leads to an un-Christian view that says all will be saved – Universalist nonsense.

Conclusions:

Steve Chalke through Oasis and his church do loads of great things, most recently helping to highlight the ‘Stop The Traffik’ campaign, however these great things are no excuses for bad doctrine.

Steve Chalke highlights some important issues of potential concern, particularly in evangelism, how we view those outside the church and the multi-faceted nature of the cross. However, his criticism of PSA as being undermining to these things is simply untrue and unfounded.

PSA is essential! Without an understanding of PSA as the major part of Jesus’ work on the cross, then our understanding of the cross, of the character of God and of the seriousness of human sin will be incomplete. I’m sticking to the traditional evangelical view as expressed through people like Calvin, and the view of the early church as expressed by Paul, PSA works, and makes sense when you look at the cross in context, again musr recommend Cross Examined, great book!

Dr. Garry Williams on Steve Chalke & PSA
Redeeming the Cross – Steve Chalke (response to Lost Message of Jesus criticism)