This can only be brief, but it only needs to be. Here, Slice says: “Shack Author Denies Substitutionary Atonement.” I’m sorry to say, that this is simply not true. What the author denied is the Penal version of Substitionary atonement. The author of The Shack specifically states that he believes in some form of substitution and quotes 2 Corinthians 5:19 in support of it. It is simply not true that the author denied substitution. What he denied is the Reformed Calvinist version of substitution. What he denies is the penal version of the substitution. I think the author of Slice needs to correct the title of her post because Young specifically states that he believes in some form of substitution.

Now, just a couple of finer points. The person conducting the interview with Young states at the end a whole list of people, one who even did one whole sermon on The Shack that included ten whole points (!; talk about avoiding the Gospel!) (and others like Driscoll, Mohler as if anyone outside the SBC cares what Mohler thinks; as if we are not people with minds and can think on our own without these all powerful guardians; as if Driscoll is always right and never wrong and the ADM’s are always for Driscoll), who are ‘opposed’ to the book The Shack. What they didn’t do is include a whole list of people, theologians and preachers alike, who are not opposed to The Shack and there are many. The interview itself was little more than the interviewer trying his damnedest to convince Young that there is a literal hell (even after Young stated that he believed in Hell as literal). Young was gracious, but he was in the lion’s den. The interviewer was just beside himself that Young denied penal substitution is central to the Gospel. When Young tried to point out that there is actually great debate about this right now, the interviewer didn’t seem to care too much.

Young stated unequivocally, “I believe the only hope for any of us is Jesus.” That’s pretty clear to me. However, denial of the penal substitution is not a denial of the Gospel. It is a denial of a particular interpretation of the Gospel. There are many, many, many theologians who deny that penal substitution is the ‘core’ of the Gospel. Consider the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:

¹Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. ²By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

³For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, ⁴that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, ⁵and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. ⁶After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. ⁷Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, ⁸and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

⁹For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. ¹⁰But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them—yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me. ¹¹Whether, then, it was I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed.

The author of Slice needs to correct her post to reflect the truth because as it stands, it is simply wrong. Again, a denial of penal substitution is not the same as a denial of the Gospel. It is only in the minds of Reformed Calvinists and The Shack haters that penal substitution is the center of the Gospel. I don’t think you will find it in the Scripture.*

*The author of Slice does have it correct in her post, but not in her title. The title is misleading. The rest stands on it’s own as a criticism of what one considers ‘gospel.’

Tags: Paul Young, Slice of Laodicea, The Shack

A friend of mine sent me this recently:

_________

Anyone who has spent any amount of time in a church or in the Christian blogosphere knows that the body of Christ is easily divided over many issues, some of which are hardly worth arguing over much less dividing over. Christ Himself recognized how easily His bride would turn on herself, and prayed for her in John 17:

“My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you.

Paul, too, was concerned over the potential for division in the very churches he had planted. In Ephesians 4 he writes:

Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.

All too often we have seen within various internet battlegrounds unity being the first thing shattered through the drawing of battle lines between emergent and Reformed bloggers. Perhaps, the unity of the Bride and Body of Christ can be at least a little less tattered if we focus on what those two groups have in common, rather than the differences.

Let’s start with Reformed preacher, theologian and all around influencer of Reformed Christians everywhere John Piper who writes:

So my take on this prophetic word is that the scare will probably do good for a lot of people. The Bible is a scary book. And the future that is coming on unbelievers is scary beyond anything any preacher could conjure up.

But my own effort to be discerning says: Stick with the Bible, David. It is scary enough.

Next let’s move onto emergent hipster and communicator Tony Jones who writes:

I am quite convinced that the Bible is a subversive text, that it constantly undermines our assumptions, transgresses our boundaries, and subverts our comforts. This may sound like academic mumbo-jumbo, but I really mean it. I think the Bible is a [...] scary book

What’s fascinating about both of these quotes from two movers and shakers (that’s a small s for the discerning individuals among us) writing from what seems like opposite ends of the spectrums is that both are writing from almost exactly the same place. Both Tony Jones and John Piper are reacting to people who they believe are misusing the Bible. Both are concerned that the people they are writing about are missing the message of scripture and both are concerned that the scriptures are delivering a message of the utmost importance.

Perhaps, if these two often opposing groups of Christians would focus on what they have in common, the truth of the scriptures, we would see a little more of the effort Paul wrote about that will result in the unity of the Spirit, rather than the divisiveness that so often defines the relationship between these two groups of brothers and sisters.

______________

I think he makes some very good points here.  I would wholeheartedly endorse his sentiment…

As I was driving into work this morning, I pulled up Charlie Hall’s September through November album on my Ipod, and I was brought back to the evening I was in attendance when he was doing this tour a few years ago.  The one thing that I remember most vividly was that his keyboard player read a meditation on Isaiah 9 that just blew me away.  I know that Isaiah 9 is a passage we normally associate with Christmas, but I think it’s even more applicable now as we are in the Lenten season heading toward Easter.  The following is the meditation piece just captures the heart of the Gospel in a way that is simply beautiful.   It was written by Joshua Banner (I hope that is the correct link), whom I sadly know little about.  Anyway, I hope it’s a blessing to you.

Meditation on Isaiah 9
by Joshua Banner

Unto us a child is born
unto all of us
unto the widow
unto the homeless
the addict
the AIDS patient
unto us the football captain
and the drag queen
unto us the politician
the factory blue collar
us the single mother
the crack baby
and unto us the affluent suburbanite
unto us the Goth
the hippie
the rocker
the alternative and underground
unto us in Hollywood and on Madison Avenue
and unto all of us in between
unto us in the gutters of Calcutta
unto the Muslim
and the Jew
the Buddhist
the Krishna and the Hindu
unto us the fatherless
unto the heavenly fatherless

For unto us a child is born
a son is given
and a secret revolution begun.
This is what the prophets had been preparing for.

They said his name would be,
“Most Beautiful Wisdom”
“the Highest of Heaven’s Secrets”

his name would be
“the God who continually bends over backwards for you”
“the God who gets down on his hands and knees”
“the God who would become silly and mis-understood”
“the God who would be mocked- – the God whose name
would be taken in vain.”

He would be called
“the God of underdogs”

“the God of the powerless and unspiritual”

“the God of those who cannot pray or fast”

And there would be no end to him and his
underdog weaklings or their secret
there would be no end even
while the nations continue to rage on
even as ethnos rises against ethnos
even as valleys are filled with dead bones
and rivers run with blood
even as violence runs through our streets
and schools and hearts
covering us like a thick fog
Even in this dark land of weak people
the God who bends over backwards
will shine forth like a great light
as the dawning of a new day
letting his secret spread forth with healing and joy.

Drop the mirror and let it shatter
Crush the hourglass and stop the clocks ticking
stand still
hold your breath
anticipate—imagine
your wildest dreams.
Sell everything and buy the farm
Come with me, cover your eyes and hold out your hands
stop your weeping
stop your groans
the fast is over.

Let the celebration begin
the father has come
He has sent his son
Unto us He has been born
even unto us.