Also, It seems to me that
A) Dever does say that substitution isn’t the whole pie, but it’s a crucial ultimate piece.
B) It’s worth talking about, especially during Holy Week.
C) All of those aspects of the Atonment listed by Scot are true, but it also seems they are grounded by scripture in justification/penal-substitution. Especially Colossians 2.

So while I agree that anybody who reduces it all to justification ALONE is missing the point of the Gospel and everything the Bible has to say about salvation — it also seems that by removing justification from the center of the Gospel you rob the Gospel of its power to save.

I’m definitely a lightweight here and I have agree in large part to what everybody has said. I respect all three of you and will probably not even attempt to defend anything I’ve just said if you choose to shoot it down. But I promise I will listen as a student listens to a teacher.

Meanwhile our UK Christian bookshops nationwide are increasingly dominated by Chalke, McLaren and Eldridge… whereas you can’t get hold of people like Keller and Driscoll… and its hard to find more than a couple of Piper books in most.

Our heritage is surrendered… but hope isn’t lost. Christ will build his church – and he is! The truth is always underfire but the gospel changes life. I refuse to give up!

Thanks for the comments.

First, let me say this: I’m sorry to have offended you. I meant nothing of the sort; my piece about Dever is reactive to a trend I see.

I think you are probably right about the direction of the emergent movement (that it is not well represented by Keller or Driscoll, though no one really knows these things but our Father).

Now to atonement stuff…

In fact, I’ve made it clear, in fact very clear, that I think that language about divine child abuse is unacceptable and way out of line. In fact, I find that language disgusting — I understand why “some” use it, but I still find it unacceptable.

I do not think penal subst theory is wrong and I would appreciate it if you’d observe that I have not said it is wrong; I think using that category to define one’s theory is woefully inadequate to the NT’s vast imagery. I have a post on this Monday.

But I will say this: there are plenty who reduce atonement to penal substitution. They may say they believe in all the theories (people number them differently), but when it gets down to defining the gospel it is reduced to just penal substitution. I’m working on a piece that will hopefully expand the image so that all theories can work together. One’s theory of the atonement is most visible in one’s evangelistic message. I contend, and I think you might agree with me on this one, that most evangelicals evangelize through the penal subst theory (problem is sin-wrath — Jesus died for our sins to resolve our guilt/God’s wrath; etc.).

Your dismissive words about what I say about Chalke … well, his book is not really about atonement, and what he has to say about it is not very good (and reductive to this unacceptable image), and he has almost nothing to do with emergent in England. Carson’s inclusion of him in his book took the emergent folks in England by surprise. What he has to say about the kingdom, being quite general I think, is not much different than the themes we find in Wright.

I didn’t suggest that, or anything like it. I just find it odd and troubling that while people in a movement that regards him as something of a leader are making that argument, Scot McKnight aims his harshest polemic at those who defend penal substitution—and misrepresents them as “reductionists” while virtually giving Chalke a free pass.

I am also saying the historic (and I believe biblical) view of substitutionary atonement, which our many of our most godly Protestant forebears have regarded as the anchor of all evangelical truth, is too important to be thrown on the table (by people who profess to be evangelicals!) to be debated in a nihilistic “conversation” where the most vocal participants apparently lack strong convictions anyway.

(Not to mention the fact that those who are most outspoken on the issue are either 1. naive people who have little appreciation for how large the idea they are rubbishing looms in historic Protestant theology, and who seem utterly oblivious to the spiritual disaster that has been the common lot of all who have denied penal substitution so far; or 2. people who ought to know better but seem to have a clear agenda to undermine historic, biblical, and evangelical distinctives).

Moreover, Scot’s reaction to Dever’s article seems to be yet another indication that people with firm and settled convictions on the matter are really not welcome to participate in this “conversation” after all. Steve Chalke can say whatever he likes, because while provocative and occasionally insulting, he’s not really dogmatic. In McKnight’s words, “There is a lot of Tom Wright in Chalke, for what it’s worth, that raises the value of [his] book.” Plus, “Chalke’s own life is in motion, and this book represents a spot where he is or was…” I.e., he’s not really come to any firm conclusions about anything, so whatever he wants to say is OK.

On the other hand, people like Dever ought to just sit down and shut up. Especially during “Holy Week.”

Sorry, but that attitude seriously offends me, especially coming from someone who—after being shown where Dever disclaims the views he attributes to him—insists he knows better than Mark Dever himself what Dever really thinks.

Ironically, that kind of stereotyping is the only thing McKnight seriously criticized Chalke for. Why is it OK when Scot does it?

Regarding the EC:

1. Of course, I am already aware that Keller and Driscoll (and a few others) are not to be lumped in with McLaren, and you know that. I have stressed that point carefully almost every time I have done any kind of formal critique of the EC. So I’m not sure why you feel the need to “plead” with me about that. I can’t recall ever having criticized either Driscoll or Keller about anything, despite whatever serious differences I might have with them over their style and philosophy of ministry.

2. On the other hand, what makes you so sure that Driscoll and Keller represent “the THEOLOGY and the DIRECTION of the EC”? In the first place, if Keller even labels himself “emerging,” (as opposed to merely “missional”) I haven’t heard him do it—and Driscoll has at times seemed to be virtually renouncing the rest of the movement.

In the second place, I read the ooze and TSK and lots of the leading EC blogs. The major strands of the movement and the large mass of people who identify with EC simply are not represented by either Keller or Driscoll.

(The lack of well-defined leadership is supposed to be one of the strong points of the EC, right?)

3. Anyway, forgive me if I don’t take your word as a reliable prophecy about the future of the EC movement(s). My own prediction would be that the bulk of the movement will continue to drift in an entirely different direction from either Driscoll or Keller. But neither of us really knows for sure.

I guess time will tell. In the meantime, don’t expect me to be positive about the whole movement just because I occasionally like something Driscoll or Keller might say. (Besides, the things I find admirable about Driscoll and Keller have nothing to do with any of the distinctives of EC; they are the very things that set them apart from the rest of the movement.)

It would be foolish not to sound a clear alarm when such obvious dangers lie immediately ahead in almost every direction that the EC has been most enthralled with so far.