×

We are still in Chapter 2 of Piper’s Future of Justification. The end of this chapter features a section on the penal-substitutionary model of the atonement.

Piper praises Wright for his clarity and strong stance on the doctrine (47). He quotes Wright at length on the atonement, specifically how Jesus is both a propitiation of God’s wrath and an expiation of our sins.

Piper then turns to Wright’s endorsement of Steve Chalke’s The Lost Message of Jesus – a book which builds on Wright’s theology, but which seems to deny penal substitution. Piper provides an excursus in which Wright lays out his reasoning for endorsing Chalke’s book.

I am weary of the furor over Steve Chalke for several reasons. First, I think it is pointless for Wright to continue to stretch the doctrine of penal substitution to fit Chalke’s view. The more I read Chalke, the more I am convinced that he does not believe in the doctrine. I understand that Wright sees Chalke as a friend and does not want to hold him to a standard of precision one would expect of a theologian. But I feel that Wright could maintain his personal affinity for Chalke and still articulate clearly his different position on the subject.

Another reason I have grown tired of this controversy is the “guilt-by-association” tendencies of the conservative crowd. Now that Chalke has gone on record denying penal substitution, anyone and everyone who likes Chalke personally, has endorsed Chalke publicly, or has read Chalke privately is viewed with suspicion. Do you like Steve Chalke? Okay… you must be a sell-out!

(I have been the target of this kind of guilt-by-association myself. “Trevin reads N.T. Wright, so he must believe in the new perspective and thus he has abandoned the gospel.” “Trevin reads Scot McKnight, so we know that Trevin must be a closet Arminian who is really an ‘Emerging Church’ guy posing as a Reformed conservative who studies at Southern Seminary.” And on and on.)

The last reason I am weary of the whole Chalke-Wright controversy is because I believe Wright has a major blind spot and I am afraid he is too much in the thick of the discussion to see it. He has criticized Pierced for our Transgressions ruthlessly for the book’s neglect of the Gospel material. I believe that this criticism is legitimate.

But why can’t Wright give the authors of Pierced for out Transgressions the benefit of the doubt the way he does Chalke? Especially since Wright’s view of penal substitution seems much closer to the authors of Pierced for our Transgressions than Steve Chalke’s view!

Piper is as perplexed as I am regarding Wright’s endorsement of Chalke and his critique of Pierced for our Transgressions. On the one hand, Wright’s view of penal substitution is unequivocal. (I have written extensively of Wright’s view of penal substitution here.) On the other hand, his endorsements and critiques don’t line up.

Next, we look at Piper’s critique of Wright’s definition of “righteousness.”

written by Trevin Wax  © 2007 Kingdom People blog

LOAD MORE
Loading