The Atonement Debate: Papers from the London Symposium on the Theology of Atonement

by Steve Chalke, Christopher J.H. Wright, I. Howard Marshall

Recent days have seen a debate among evangelicals over how the death of Christ is to be interpreted. When a popular British evangelical leader appeared to denounce the idea that God was punishing Christ in our place on the cross as a "twisted version of events," "morally dubious," and a "huge barrier to faith" that should be rejected in favour of preaching only that God is love, major controversy was stirred. Many thought the idea of penal substitution was at the heart of the evangelical understanding of the cross, if not the only legitimate interpretation of the death of Christ. Yet for some time less popular evangelical theologians had been calling this traditional interpretation of the atonement into question. So, is the traditional evangelical view of penal substitution the biblical explanation of Christ’s death or one of many? Is it the non-negotiable heart of evangelical theology or a time-bound explanation that has outlived its usefulness? What does the cross say about the character of God, the nature of the law and sin, the meaning of grace, and our approach to missions?The public debate which resulted was often heated. In order to act as reconcilers, the Evangelical Alliance and the London School of Theology called for a symposium in which advocates of the different positions could engage with each other. The symposium, which was attended by some 200 participants, was held when the July 7th bombings took place in London and drew together many of Britain’s finest evangelical theologians. This book contains the collection of papers given at the symposium, supplemented by a few others for the sake of rounding out the agenda, and grouped in convenient sections.

Genres: Theology, Nonfiction, Audiobook

368 pages, Paperback

First published April 1, 2008

About the author

Steve Chalke is a British Baptist minister, social entrepreneur, author, and speaker widely recognized for his work in promoting social inclusion and justice. He is the founder of the Oasis Charitable Trust, an organization he launched in 1985 with the vision of building inclusive communities where everyone is valued and empowered. Under his leadership, Oasis has become one of the UK's largest charities, operating across a wide spectrum of services including housing, healthcare, education, and youth and community development—both in the UK and internationally.
Chalke's commitment to education is reflected in his founding of Oasis Community Learning, a multi-academy trust responsible for over 40 schools throughout England. The trust seeks to support not just academic achievement, but whole-community transformation through education. He also serves as the founding minister of Oasis Church Waterloo in central London, a place of welcome and inclusion for people of all backgrounds.
In 2006, Chalke launched Stop the Traffik, a global coalition working to end human trafficking through awareness, education, and systemic change. The organization has mobilized tens of thousands of activists in nearly 100 countries. His work in this field led to his appointment as a United Nations Special Adviser on Human Trafficking.
As an author, Chalke has written extensively on theology, faith, and social justice. His notable books include The Lost Message of Jesus, Apprentice: Walking the Way of Christ, and The Lost Message of Paul, among others. He has also written numerous articles and is a frequent speaker on topics related to spirituality, ethics, and public life.
In recognition of his tireless efforts, he was appointed a Member of the Order of the British Empire (MBE) for services to social inclusion and has received multiple honorary degrees and fellowships. He also holds the Guinness World Record for the most sponsorship money raised by an individual marathon runner, having raised over £2.3 million during the London Marathon.
Throughout his career, Steve Chalke has consistently challenged societal norms and church traditions in pursuit of compassion, equality, and justice, making him one of the most influential voices in contemporary British Christianity.

Reviews

[Jeremiah P · Rating 4 out of 5]

The chapters on biblical foundations were good -- especially I. Howard Marshall's "The Theology of the Atonement" The chapters on historical perspectives were also especially good -- particularly "Bernard Clairvaux: Theologian of the Cross"

The bulk of the papers included in this book favor retaining some form of penal substitution theory among our theories of atonement. It's my humble opinion that we must continue to affirm penal substitution (or representation) in order to be faithful to Scripture (see Marshall's chapter).

Some say that there are three umbrella headings under which all atonement theories can be located. These correspond to Christ's three offices: Prophet, Priest, and King. I think this is helpful. As prophet Jesus was our Moral Example. As priest Jesus Sacrificed and offered himself for us. As king Jesus won Victory over death, hell, and demons for us.

The historical chapters reminded me of the need for contemporary theological work. The battles being fought when this book was published (which are still being fought today) are not new. The same ground was covered long ago. But we need fresh voices for a new generation. Just because Bernard of Clairvaux got it right, for instance, doesn't mean anyone is still hearing him. We need faithful men and women to articulate in new and creative ways the things once and for all delivered to the saints.

[Emmanuel Boston · Rating 4 out of 5]

At times dated, this becoming more of a history of theology book than a theology book, it nonetheless feels dated precisely because the original papers served their purpose in developing atonement doctrine to the next stages of discussion. Like most composite works, some are quite good, some are significantly lacking, and a majority sing a mid-high note. Anyone reading these is likely aware of all the issues and thus this is mostly an account of each author's views during the era in which they were delivered.

[Steve · Rating 3 out of 5]

These papers, first delivered in 2005 in response to The Lost Message of Jesus (Steve Chalke and Alan Mann), remain relevant today as the debate about penal substitution continues. They vary in their perspective and stance on the atonement, but also in their readability - some are wonderfully clear, others densely academic (and for me unintelligible). It's a shame that there is no actual debate between the authors - each paper stands alone. I was really helped in my understanding of Christ's work on the cross by some of the authors, challenged to think more critically by others with whom I still disagreed, and confused by a few that were quite obscure. Thankful for a final paper by Derek Tidball, providing a sensible and wise pastoral apologetic for the doctrine of penal substitution.

[Joseph Sverker · Rating 4 out of 5]

An extraordinarily good introduction to penal substitution and some critical evaluations from theologians that are very well informed about the doctrine. The debate and the contributions are all (with some exceptions like Oliver Crisp and Anna Robbins, who has worked at LST though) within a British evangelical setting and that is partly what makes this book so good I think. There are some shared assumptions which means that it is possible to read the chapters and compare. Unusual for a book of this sort, it is not too dispersed. I think this should be required reading for anyone critical against penal substitution since this is what one should react against rather than "straw men" which often gets to represent penal substitution in many other books.

[John Martindale · Rating 4 out of 5]

Though I am not a subscriber to the doctrine of Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA) and most of the essays were defending PSA, I still thoroughly enjoyed the book for the most part, I found most of the essays pretty interesting and insightful. By far, my favorite chapter was “The Logic of Penal Substitution revisited” by Oliver Crisp.

I found it interesting that Crisp, a supporter of PSA, gave what I thought the most devastating critique of the view. He argued persuasively the fatal problems with the concept of guilt being transfer from the guilty party to an innocent part. Next, he pointed out how some acknowledge the impossibility of the transfer of guilty and therefore say only the punishment is transferred from the guilty onto the innocent, but they still face grave problems too, for transferring the penalty to the innocent would be the height of injustice. Crisp thinks, therefore, aspects of PSA need to be jettison, and yet still “a robust doctrine of penal substitution can be salvaged, despite the foregoing, with a little help from Augustinian realism, the view according to which God constitutes humanity one metaphysical whole for the purposes of the imputation of sin. By extending the traditional use of this doctrine to encompass the atonement and union with Christ, a way might be found to salvage the doctrine of penal substitution.”

This Augustinian doctrine of how all where guilty in Adam and now all who are in Christ are righteousness still is difficult for me to get my head around. So yes. Jesus is the new Adam, the representative and what is true for the King is true for his people, but still I honestly don't really understand how to harmonize it all with the equally obvious theme throughout scripture of the value of the individual, personal guilt and not being punish for the sins of another or being credited righteous due to another's virtue.

Howard Marshall, in response to those who convey the Father being angry and punishing Christ, mentions that even Calvin didn't say the Father was angry with Jesus. But instead focused more on how God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself. Marshall wrote “There is a penalty and curse for sin, and Christ consented to enter that region, it is impossible for us to say that God was angered with Christ, but still Christ entered the wrath of God. Though Christ wasn't punished by God, he still took sins punishment upon himself, to say that Christ was punished by God who was always will pleased with him is an outrageous thing, Calvin himself repudiates the idea” -Howard Marshall

Hmm... yet it still is kind of like the Father is full of rage and has vent his anger at sinners and yet the Father because he loves us is like “Hey Jesus I am not mad at you or anything, nor do I have any intention to punish you instead of them. But yeah, my nature being justice and all, I have no choice but to come out swinging, full of wroth and beat these sinners to a pulp. So here is my plan, when I come out swinging, I want you to jump in front and get in my way, so I end up beating you to death instead of them (don't take it personally or anything though), and in this way you'll completely exhaust my fury and appease wrath, and finally these sinful wretches can be saved, while I remain true to my wrath which is fundamental to our nature” And Jesus is like “sure, I'm in, lets do it!”

[Kent Winward · Rating 3 out of 5]

So what am I doing reading nineteen papers from an evangelical symposium on the atonement? I think my wife thought I'd gone off on a born again binge, but nay, it is not so. I was completely enthralled with the lengths the Christian scholars contorted themselves to fit their theology into a coherent structure -- the compulsion to look for twisted bodies in an accident. The entire experience was a lot like looking on the creation inside a self-made universe of rules and strictures and everyone played the game without a referee in site. It was a fascinating dip into the art of rhetoric. Lawyers tend to do the same thing, arguing from what is written in the book, and leaving out the outside context as we force the world to conform to our laws.

The limits on discussion that can be created merely by belief left me wondering and deeply concerned over what my own beliefs did to limit me. The arguments on the atonement all contained their own logic, but it was a logic that was based on the sandiest of foundations.

I would say it is important for non-believers and believers to read what is written by the other side. The insight alone is worth the price of admission. I learned that certain beliefs on God and the atonement can have an extreme impact on real life social and political implementation of justice and mercy -- as the political process points out.

[Blake · Rating 3 out of 5]

A thorough review would be too taxing, so I'll be brief. The contents of this book focus primarily on the penal substitutionary theory (PST) of the atonement, which we might understand as follows: the Second Person of the Trinity became incarnate and was crucified for the sins of (many) human persons in order to take upon himself the full penalty of human sin; those who exercise saving faith will have Christ's righteousness legally imputed to them.

The book includes authors in agreement and disagreement with PST, and some of the more intriguing chapters include rigorous defenses of PST. Of particular interest to me was Oliver Crisp's partial and illuminating analysis of the logical complexities of PST. Crisp is explicit that advocates of PST have an uphill journey if they are to make plausible certain aspects of PST.

Overall, I found the book to be only modestly helpful.