We have moved to www.theprognosis.org

A little while ago, when we were all going on a bit of Steve Chalke bender, I suggested that his primary issue in the way he understands penal substitution was to do with his understanding of who Jesus is. Today I thought about that again, as I was reading a proper tidy book called ‘The Work of Christ’ by Bob Letham.

The opening chapter of the book is taken up with the necessity of Christ’s being both God and man; “A less than human Christ could no more be the saviour of human beings than a less than divine Christ could no more be the true revelation of God” (pg. 25). Letham makes his point historically by whizzing (do I need a ‘h’ there?) us through 2000 years of how Christ’s nature was understood, from the the early days of people thinking he was a little bit less man, right through to the post Enlightenment’s thinking that he was a lot less God.

It was toward the end of this section that he writes something that’s been a real help to me understanding the whole Catholic/Mary thing. I’ve never really gotten it see… Where exactly does the Bible even give a hint that Mary is the mediator we need to get to God?

It doesn’t - but here’s Letham’s take on how it came about. And once again, it’s a Christological issue;

“…where the incarnation, although held to be true, is nonetheless not given adequate theological weight, the link between Christ and humanity is eroded… Christ was viewed in his supreme deity and comman nature was neglected. Consequently, the need arose for some additional form of human mediation between us and the exalted Christ…”

Enter, stage right, Mary.

“WHY I WAS AND NOW AM A (closet) EVANGELICAL”

For a long time, I’d been trying to disassociate myself with the word evangelical. Whenever anyone asked me ‘what sort of christian are you?’ My immediate response would be to use ‘a christian christian’ or ‘bible believing christian’ as an answer. For a long time I’ve had a real problem saying evangelical, or especially ‘born again’. Not so much on theological grounds, but more on cultural/dispositional ones.

You see, I couldn’t help but make a connection between the word evangelical and a stiff, joyless and morbid christianity - a christianity that was too scared to realise that it existed in the 21st century. Anything ‘new’ was looked upon with concern or even a type of proud fear. Evangelicalism for me had become an exclusive gang that was only going to be ablt to attract the boring, the bored, or the social cameleon. This was not a selling point. My problem with using the word came from within the big C Church.

And even though I couldn’t disagree with the doctrine, I found myself mightily disagreeing with the attitudes.

But was my problem with the word? No, of course it wasn’t. By definition, I was an evangelical - I believed in the final and full authority of the Bible. I believed that without God coming after me, him giving me life, him saving my soul, by grace, through faith in the penal substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ then I would be dead and without hope. Whether I liked it or not, I was a historical evangelical. I stood for all it stood for.

But in spite of my entymological pilgrimage, I’ve now realised that things have got to change. It’s not important what I mean when I use the word. What’s important is how it’s heard. In the current culture, it doesn’t matter what the historical evangelicalism is, because one man’s evangelicalism might be another man’s beret wearing, fake tan donning, cross-less, original sin-less, Christ-less, salvation-by-group hug, bring twenty quid and raise the dead Sunday club. Death by association anyone?

So am I an evangelical? Yes and no. What exactly do you mean by evangelical?

Jonny. I’m with you. Just call me Christ’s.

Right, a very quick blog. I’m putting off returning to work on Ruth 3. It’s so hard - ‘ladies - this is not the way to find a husband’ - maybe I’m missing the point slightly.

Thought I might blog about some of the things I’ve been doing recently (apart from preaching for two and a half hours last Sunday night…).

Firstly, our new church website is finally up - cwmpawd.org

It’s taken a long time to get right, but it’s something I’m very pleased with. I was fairly convicted at the start of the year that as a Church in the city we had no excuse for not having a good website. Yes, we’re dealing with the spiritual, but until we get a chance to get to work on the spiritual, we’re competing for people’s free time. Long gone are the days of people just wandering in on a Sunday night. Like our favourite (not Chalkey, the other one - Driscoll) says ‘the web is the new front door of the Church’. If we’re going to compete for people’s time, then we’ve got to do so against the Vue, the endless coffee shops on Crwys Rd, the Blues, the Cardiff Devils, and much more besides. For a metropolitan church not to have a decent website - by not just christian ‘let’s be gracious in our attitude’ standards, but by everyone else’s standards - is like being some hypercalvinist that is ’surprised’ when no-one sticks his head round to church door to ‘wonder what all the godly chatter’ he hears is. The web is the first, probably the only, place someone will go to find out about something new.

The other thing I’ve been doing recently is making some films, one of which you can see above. A couple of weeks ago I stood on a concrete puddle which seven years ago was the sight of the national eisteddfod in Llanelli. The place has a lot of memories - it’s where I first went into y gorlan, and first heard the gospel. For those of you that don’t speak the language of heaven (sic.), the film is my testimony. What a great day, remembering and sharing how Christ has worked in my life!

I now help run y gorlan. It’s a 24/7 Christian burger tent right in the middle of the festivals youth camp site. This year we’ll be showing some films inside, one of which is the above.

You don’t have to be able to speak welsh to work there - language is no barrier to flipping a burger, and the truth is, the more people that don’t speak welsh there frees up a welshy to contact work over the counter. If you’re free between the 4th and 11th of August, get in touch - it’d be great to have you along.

Just to make it a little clearer. Here’s the promo film we made last year.

Firstly and foremostly I am in no way throwing Highfields into the SpringHarvest Atonement debate.

Now then, me, Lewis and Jon were musing over the increasing likness a certain Cardiff pastor seems to be cultivating with a famous BBC presenter. Some jokes followed. Then, about a week later, someone posted with regards Steve Chalke and added a photo of said chappy to help us understand. It was the first time I had seen the little Tango fella. Is it just me, or are they both trying to be the next Dale Winton?

Thought I might wade in with a quick blog about the penal substitution thingy. Here’s mine…

As an undergraduate I loved studying church history. As an assistant Pastor I was mentored by Kevin Adams who also loved church history and encouraged me to read and apply it to my ministry. I love church history.

But I also love thinking about how people will look at our generation in the years to come. What will the students of WEST be taught about Western Evangelicalism at the turn of the Millennium in 2207?? What would their study of source materials (Blogs more than books) tell them about our passions and struggles? What heresies will they be able to see that snuck into our church under the cover of night?

10 years ago I thought they would have a module in historic pneumatology called ‘The Toronto Blessing: Laughter, Lying or Lord?’.

Five years ago I was convinced there would have been a module in the Doctrine of God called ‘The omission of ‘omni’: the day God lost His mind in the openness of God debate.’ At the same time I was worried that we would have a module called ‘The rise of fusion and the fall of united and effective witness on Campus’.

However, all three issues: the Toronto blessing (so-called), open theism, and the alleged rise of Fusion have come and gone (even if a handful of die-hards try to keep the flames alive).

But I believe with all my heart - and wish it were not so - that there will be a module called ‘the atonement controversy at the turn of the millennium’. In fact, there may even be a module called ‘the split of Evangelicalism and the rise of neo-liberal Evangelicalism’ which will be marked by a rejection of penal substitution and therefore a necessary rejection of the authority of Scripture, the character of God, Biblical counselling, and mission.

I truly believe that the ultimate defining moment of our generation is not our embrace of new songs, the rise of house churches, our pneumatology, or even our search for a biblical model of social action. No, the one thing that our generation will be known for and held accountable for is our handling of the debate over penal substitution. EA have dropped the ball, so has Spring Harvest and Christianity magazine. EA have debated and made a statement - but they have not made a clear and defining stand. They have not led us as our forefathers have. Spring Harvest and Christianity magazine (probably the biggest influence on the more left field evangelicals) have embraced Britain’s popularist of the rejection of penal substitution (Steve Chalke) and given him a legitimacy and platform.

A bit of church history: Let me quote a very academic source (Wikipedia!);

‘In the summer term of 1910 an evangelical student called Norman Grubb of Trinity College, Cambridge and a friend, met with ten representatives of the Student Christian Movement to discuss their concerns that SCM was promoting an overly liberal view of Christianity in the British universities. Grubb posed the direct question, “Does the Student Christian Movement put the atoning blood of Christ central in its teaching?” After a little deliberation the answer came, “We acknowledge it, but it is not central.”

Grubb and his friends at Cambridge decided that they could no longer work in partnership with the SCM saying that it had divorced a biblically-based, cross-centred emphasis. They began the Cambridge Inter-Collegiate Christian Union (CICCU). Soon, their contemporaries at Oxford did the same, and new Christian Unions (CUs) began to spring up in a number of universities over country.’

That was the start of UCCF.

They took a stand on the Cross. They did what we and every generation must do;

-Define the Cross - make sure we have a full and Biblical view.

-Declare the Cross - ensure that all have the opportunity to embrace and love it.

-Defend the Cross - this is our non negotiable. It is not an optional or secondary doctrine.

Men and women, we MUST make sure that we understand the Cross (Define), we must then share it with non Christians for their salvation and with Christians for their sanctification and joy (Declare), we must also make sure that our generation and the generation to come are not taken captive by the heresy that is circulating contemporary evangelicalism (Defend).

Please meditate on the following:

Isaiah 52:13-53:12

2 Corinthians 5:21

1 Peter 2:21-25

1 Corinthians 15:1-8

Galatians 1:6-9 - With a heavy heart I say that this undermining of penal substitution is another gospel. And Paul is clear on how we are to respond to it.

Let us do all we can to make sure that the students of WEST look at our generation with admiration as we stand against this tide of heresy. Is there a new Norman Grubb out there? Will someone stand as Luther did?

This is our defining moment.

Stand!

So Word Alive is coming to Wales in 2008 with a genius new name: “New Word Alive”! And personally I think it’s great! Word Alive previously ran one very good week at Spring Harvest in Skegness. Now they are holding a week long conference at Pwllheli in North Wales .

I think the funny thing is that the previously called FIEC Pwllheli Conference has gone to Cheltenham and now New Word Alive has taken its place. I heard a rumour that the site in Pwllheli weren’t happy because the FIEC people weren’t buying enough booze, so if that’s the case then they obviously think UCCF/Keswick people are more likely to booze it up – students huh?!

It’s pretty awesome that since Wales lost a conference, it gained a conference. And the list of speakers lined up, including Don Carson and John Piper, is pretty darn enticing! I’ve been to Word Alive a few times and I think they were the best week-long conferences I’ve been on, so it’s great that something of that quality is coming to Wales .

As for the controversy, I don’t think there’s much to say that hasn’t already been blogged elsewhere. Word Alive won’t have Steve Chalke to speak, because of his views that reject penal substitution. The leaders of Spring Harvest have upheld (at least to an extent) penal substitution but aren’t happy about Word Alive not allowing Steve Chalke to speak. If you want more detail about this look at the article on Adrian Warnock’s blog “Word Alive and Spring Harvest to Separate After 15 Years Because of the Atonement”.

As for penal substitution, I most definitely uphold it, as I’m certain all the other authors on this blog would. Penal substitution, simply put, is the belief that on the cross Christ was punished in man’s place. I don’t think it is the only explanation of the cross, the Bible also speaks of the cross being a ransom and a victory. The cross is also transference of Christ’s righteousness and an example of love and obedience. And I don’t think penal substitution is the complete explanation of what happened at the cross but it is one of the main Biblical explanations of what was going on at the cross. Christ has suffered the wrath of the Father that was deserved by me.

Can I get an Amen?!