Word Alive is no more

33 Responses to “Word Alive is no more”

1. jody says:
   

   interesting how the ‘scandal of the Cross’ has now been turned into the ‘scandal of Steve Chalke’

   some will find it so offensive to hear that God is love and will forgive so readily….

   indeed a sorry state of affairs.

   April 20th, 2007 at 11:45 am
2. John Davies says:
   

   Steve Chalke has every right to question the doctrine of penal substitution as it is by no means the last word on the meaning of the cross. “We feel unable to shift on this position.” Who said that in the passion story? Wasn’t it the Sanhedrin?

   April 20th, 2007 at 11:56 am
3. Karin says:
   

   I don’t remember Pwllheli having much to recommend it.

   April 20th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
4. joe says:
   

   I’ve long given up caring what UCCF thinks about almost everything. I detest the way that it appears to see its role as some kind of mind-control – as if there is only one form of right thinking and anyone who says anything different is Wrong and Evil and Unsaved. No, actually. Some of us have just done a bit of independant thinking and have come to our own conclusions based on critically examining the evidence. Y’know that think that you are meant to be learning at university rather than how to become the Parish PopeTM

   April 20th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
5. joe says:
   

   Oh Lord, in my anger, please help me to remember how to spell.

   April 20th, 2007 at 12:18 pm
6. David says:
   

   Thanks for the news Dave, we have been to word alive several times at Skegness and always benefited from it.

   Out of interest, Steve Chalke responds to comment on the Oasis Trust website;

   http://www.oasistrust.org/temp/RedeemingspthespCross1.pdf

   April 20th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
7. Jeremy says:
   

   If it’s any comfort, the church has been shooting {(a) off its mouth; (b) itself in the foot} since time immemorial.

   Steve Chalke has a polemical style. So did, for instance, C. S. Lewis – whose theology if read piecemeal would likely shock UCCF too. Will we see the bookstalls purged? Somehow I think not.

   Once more we break fellowship instead of breaking bread, and choose politics over Jesus’ command. See how these Christians reprove one another.

   April 20th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
8. Tiffer says:
   

   I am not at all surprised. They were talking about it for some time – I think I heard that last year was going to be the last year, or maybe even the year before. This year Spring Harvest was talking about the church, and the concencus seemed to be that women in leadership was a great thing, and if you didn’t agree then you probably weren’t part of the church proper (I’m being a bit harsh but one speaker did say you can’t be truly catholic (with a small c) if you don’t approve). There was a lot of straw man beating, most of which could easily have been applied to UCCF, and I wondered what would have happened had a UCCF person been there and reported back

   It seems convenient for UCCF that Steve Chalke is involved at SH, it means they can say it is about a doctrinal issue, rather than bad biblical or teaching or somesuch thing. Although I think it is a silly reason, it fits nicely into the “reasons why we won’t work with them” category for UCCF types.

   April 20th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
9. Tiffer says:
   

   And I think the cartoon is very funny.

   April 20th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
10. Carl says:
    

    Why I think penal substitution is not an issue that organisations should be parting company over

    April 20th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
11. jody says:
    

    Hi

    politely letting you know that I’ve linked to this post at my blog

    x Jody

    April 20th, 2007 at 5:52 pm
12. Tractor Girl says:
    

    Interesting but sad; it’s a real pity that the conservative and progressives can’t play nicely together.

    April 21st, 2007 at 6:54 am
13. POd says:
    

    Just to clarify one point. It was Spring Harvest that ended the partnership. UCCF didn’t walk away willingly.

    April 21st, 2007 at 10:01 am
14. POd says:
    

    Joe – you’re a very angry man. haha!

    April 21st, 2007 at 10:04 am
15. Johann says:
    

    This is all very sad. There are so many ways of looking at the Cross, and we cannot begin to understand Jesus’ death without looking at them all – even then we shall never fully understand until that time when, by His grace, we see Him face to face.

    However, surely it is accepted by most Christians that sinful man cannot come into close fellowship with a Holy God without a bridge – and that bridge is provided by the Cross, on which our sinless Saviour died; and that this is God Himself in the person of His Son Jesus dying Himself as a ransom for the sins of the world.

    Is it not possible that the problem is at least in part because we cannot fully understand the Trinity? If the Father, Son & Holy Spirit are Three and yet One, God is not a “cosmic child abuser” if He is dying Himself in our place.
    What an amazing mystery!

    Also “the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing”, as St.Paul writes to the Christians in Corinth; so it will be thought irrelevant by many. It is only through the Holy Spirit that eyes can be opened (and are being opened, praise God).

    April 21st, 2007 at 9:43 pm
16. Tim says:
    

    check out my thoughts on my blog.
    http://www.thneale.typepad.com

    April 21st, 2007 at 11:35 pm
17. POd says:
    

    check this blog out too!
    http://danielblanche.blogspot.com

    April 21st, 2007 at 11:45 pm
18. POd says:
    

    It seems convenient for UCCF that Steve Chalke is involved at SH, it means they can say it is about a doctrinal issue, rather than bad biblical or teaching or somesuch thing. Although I think it is a silly reason, it fits nicely into the “reasons why we won’t work with them” category for UCCF types.

    This sisn’t really true. Spring Harvest ended the partnership so it’s really Spring Harvest that refuse to work with UCCF

    April 21st, 2007 at 11:48 pm
19. LJB says:
    

    Spring Harvest adheres to the EA basis of faith, which includes the statement: ‘We believe in … the atoning sacrifice of Christ on the cross: dying in our place, paying the price of sin and defeating evil, so reconciling us with God.’

    Steve Chalke clearly doesn’t accept this … and yes I have read his article linked in a comment above … so it seems a shame that Spring Harvest as an organisation are prepared to sacrifice so much for the sake of one person’s opinion, with which so many disagree.

    I’m sorry there is so much negative reaction to the UCCF … I hope folk are able to look beyond the personalities and organisations involved and decide for themselves what the death of Christ means to them.

    April 22nd, 2007 at 3:56 pm
20. David Keen says:
    

    LJB – I don’t think Chalke would have a problem with this. The question is, what does ‘paying the price’ mean? Chalke rejects the idea that the ‘price’ is to suffer the wrath of God’s anger against sin.

    Chalke makes the perfectly valid point that the penal substitution is not the gospel. Jesus was preaching the gospel years before his death on the cross, and the proclamation of the early church was that through the resurrection God had enthroned Jesus as Messiah and Lord – the king demanding their ultimate loyalty.

    Jesus dying in our place, and suffering the penalty for our sin, is part of the picture, but not all of it. There are many other images and facets of the Cross in scripture. Sadly many Christian groups have a history of taking part of the truth and proclaiming that it is the whole truth. That seems to be a danger here.

    The trouble is, having just been to Spring Harvest, the quality of teaching in some areas could have been a lot higher. Quite apart from the rights and wrongs, it’s a shame therefore that SH is losing the partnership of people who love good teaching.

    April 22nd, 2007 at 4:39 pm
21. jody says:
    

    okay, I was kinda trying not to comment too much on this, but it seems that there is a lot about how Steve Chalke thinks ‘this or that’ which then means he’s ‘lost confidence in the gospel’ or some such thing.

    so, for what it’s worth, my tuppenceworth is here:

    http://radical-evangelical.blogspot.com/2007/04/im-loathe-to-even-bring-it-up-but.html

    it’s actually in response to the Jeffery John Lent talk, but it’s the same discussion really.

    April 22nd, 2007 at 5:45 pm
22. POd says:
    

    David,

    Here’s what I posted on Carl’s BLOG:

    You are right in saying that there are other ways of understanding the cross other than penal sub. e.g. reconciliation (relational – we were God’s enemies but because of the cross we’re his friends), justification (we were guilty but because Jesus takes our sin, he gives us his righteousness) and redmemtion (we were slaves to sin but now we’re free). However, penal sub is SO important because it is the foundation of how the above things can happen.

    I was God’s enemy but now I can be reconciled because His wrath is dealt with (poured on Jesus) and my sin is not a problem (jesus ytakes it on himself).

    I was guilty and under judgement but because jesus takes my sin I’m no longer guilty but inocent and because jesus takes my judgement (God’s wrath) there is no more penal judgement for me to fear.

    I was a slave to sin but because Jesus takes my sin and gives me his Righteuoness i’m free.

    Can you see how penal sub underlines all the other ways we undertsand the cross? without it there can be no reconcilation, redemtion or justification.

    That’s why John Piper say’s that Steve’s view of the atonement in in danger of robbing us of the gospel.

    In short – penal sub is one way of looking at the cross but if you lose ps it undermines the other ways in which we view the atonement. Lose penal sub and you really have compromised the gospel.

    POd

    April 22nd, 2007 at 6:15 pm
23. Karin says:
    

    Personally I don’t think it is necessary to believe in penal substitution to do the Gospel justice, but then different people have different ideas about what the Gospel is all about.

    There may be an element of Jesus paying the price for our sin, but the doctrine of penal substitution is an attempt to explain in detail something that we should probably not try to explain in detail.

    The idea that Jesus’ death was about him confronting our sin and allowing human beings to do their worse, yet rising above it, also goes some way to explaining what happened on and through the cross IMO.

    I think Steve Chalke is right in saying that the way some people describe penal substitution makes it sound like Jesus suffered at the hands of a vicious and vindictive God.

    April 22nd, 2007 at 6:49 pm
24. POd says:
    

    ‘different people have different ideas about what the Gospel is all about’

    People will always have their opinions but what does he bible say the gospel is? Rom 1-3 is a good place to start.

    ‘There may be an element of Jesus paying the price for our sin, but the doctrine of penal substitution is an attempt to explain in detail something that we should probably not try to explain in detail.’

    Why should we not try to explain what happened on the cross in detail? The bible talks about it plainly Isa 53/ Rom 1-3/ Lev 16/ infact the whole O/T sacrificial system is pointing towards the cross…

    ‘The idea that Jesus’ death was about him confronting our sin and allowing human beings to do their worse, yet rising above it, also goes some way to explaining what happened on and through the cross IMO.’

    Sorry – this is a massive assumption on your part. Isa 53 tells us that the cross was about the servant (jesus) being pierced by God for the transgessions of sinful poeple.

    It would be really helpful if you could justify your assumption from the bible.

    ‘I think Steve Chalke is right in saying that the way some people describe penal substitution makes it sound like Jesus suffered at the hands of a vicious and vindictive God.’

    Anyone that makes God out to be vindictive and and vicious has committed a terrible crime because we know that God is loving and holy. BUT, Steve isn’t saying that making god out to be V+V is wrong (we would all agree with him if that’s what he was saying). Steve is saying that GOd DID NOT pour his wrath out upon Jesus in our place.

    My reply really isn’t intended to cause offence do really sorry if I’veexpressed myself clumsily. apologies too for my child like spelling ability…

    April 22nd, 2007 at 8:46 pm
25. Karin says:
    

    Dealing with the above post one piece at a time, I strongly suggest that the Sermon on the Mount and Jesus’ ‘set the captives free’ speech early on in his ministry are better places to start understanding the Gospel Jesus preached.

    April 23rd, 2007 at 6:48 am
26. Karin says:
    

    In fact I probably should have elaborated. The Gospel message as I understand it is about a new world order, the Kingdom of God, based on love and respect rather than violence and aggression. The Gospel message is a political message and it’s not about living more outwardly morally upright lives as the Pharisees were doing. It is about a deep and radical change of priorities in our inward being.

    Heaven may await the faithful when they die, and perhaps it awaits the not so faithful, but Jesus’ message was about how we live in the here and now, how we can make little bits of heaven on earth and how we can avoid creating hell on earth.

    April 23rd, 2007 at 7:15 am
27. Karin says:
    

    Why should we not try to explain what happened on the cross in detail? The bible talks about it plainly Isa 53/ Rom 1-3/ Lev 16/ infact the whole O/T sacrificial system is pointing towards the cross…

    Because, POd, whatever is said about it in the New Testament is an attempt to explain what cannot fully be explained, and it is only aspects of each attempt to explain that are valid. The whole metaphor or whatever might not work entirely. After all we all know the Bible is not meant to be taken literally.

    Sorry – this is a massive assumption on your part. Isa 53 tells us that the cross was about the servant (jesus) being pierced by God for the transgessions of sinful poeple.

    You make an interesting assumption yourslef here, POd. I’d be surprised if Isaiah was talking about the cross or Jesus, although with hindsight we can see some connection, but probably best not to take it too far. Isaiah was written a long time before Jesus lived and was addressing the issues of his day. There is great debate about who the ‘sufereing servant was’, an actual person or symbolic of a group etc but it would have referred to a person or situation in Isaiah’s day, even if it can have a more general application.

    BUT, Steve isn’t saying that making god out to be V+V is wrong (we would all agree with him if that’s what he was saying). Steve is saying that GOd DID NOT pour his wrath out upon Jesus in our place.

    And Steve is by no means alone in questioning the idea of a wrathful God punishing Jesus, who we are told was innocent of all sin, in our place. Jesus himslef encouraged those who listened to him to think of God as a merciful, forgiving and loving heavenly Father.

    There are various books on the significance of Jesus’ death, ‘Consuming Passion’ edited by Simon Barrow and Jonathan Bartley, being one of them, which is very readable.

    April 24th, 2007 at 9:17 am
28. Pete Broadbent says:
    

    On behalf of Spring Harvest I have issued the following statement in relation to UCCF’s misleading press release:

    Spring Harvest, Keswick and UCCF (the three partners in Word Alive) agreed to go their separate ways. The statement we produced at the time reads as follows:

    “2007 will be the last year of Spring Harvest Word Alive. The constituent organisations – Keswick Ministries, UCCF and Spring Harvest – will be ending a partnership that has lasted 14 years, and have agreed to go their separate ways.

    Word Alive was originally conceived as a distinctive event within Spring Harvest, drawing Christians from a more theologically conservative church background to Butlins for a week with a strong emphasis on expository bible teaching and a major input for students. The partnership has been a fruitful one and we thank God for the way he has worked through this event over the years.

    Of late, it has been difficult to accommodate Word Alive as a separate week within the total mix, and after much discussion, the Spring Harvest Council of Management gave notice that Spring Harvest Word Alive could not continue beyond this year.

    Spring Harvest wish the Word Alive partners well and we separate thanking God for the part the other plays in the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ in the UK today.”

    Various people have since attempted to “spin” the reasons why we decided to go our separate ways for their own purposes. That’s their decision. It’s not where Spring Harvest are. Wallace Benn and Pete Broadbent stood on a public platform at Spring Harvest Word Alive, wished our respective events well, prayed for each other, and departed on the best of terms. The statement made jointly by the two of us on behalf of Spring Harvest Word Alive criticising Jeffrey John’s inflammatory broadcast indicates that there is no way that anyone can represent Spring Harvest as being anywhere other than the orthodox biblical stance on the atonement.

    It’s terribly sad that UCCF have now come out with an official statement that simply isn’t true to what actually took place. I don’t want to get into a public row with UCCF, whose ministry among students I support. But I dispute most of what is contained in the statement as being either misunderstanding (wilful or otherwise) or total fabrication. I could hope that they would withdraw their statement and hold their peace. They seem to want to define themselves over against Spring Harvest, which I regret. We stand for the same faith and the same gospel.

    April 24th, 2007 at 2:23 pm
29. Graham Doel says:
    

    I have been to SH Word Alive for the last five years. We would have rather gone to a regular SH week, but that one was the only one we could make. I had noticed that Steve Chalke had not been on the platform at Word Alive for a number of years. When they announced the dissolution of the partnership it was exactly as Pete Broadbent has reported above. We did wonder if the reasons behind it were deeper than they reported.

    We were passing the Wesley Owen stand when some one asked if they could buy one of Steve’s books. The assistant told the enquirer that they were not allowed to put Steve’s books out at Word Alive.

    It strikes me that UCCF’s statement, as unfortunate and unhelpful as it is, is not likely to be total fabrication. If it is why has Steve Chalke not been to Word Alive to speak and why are his books not allowed to be sold?

    sigh…. its all very unfortunate.

    April 25th, 2007 at 8:28 am
30. Chris says:
    

    I must admit to having been a little confused by the Bishops’ statement criticising Jeffrey John, released during the Word Alive week. While the statement was headlined as being a clarification of Spring Harvest’s position on the atonement, it made no explicit mention of penal substitution, which seemed to me like the only point on which there was any ambiguity. So, if one holds that penal substitution is the orthodox Biblical position, I’m not sure that it is particularly clear. Having read the statement I appreciate the criticism of Jeffery John (who isn’t exactly the favourite churchman of most evangelicals), but on penal substitution the only thing that seemed to be clarified was the lack of clarity itself.

    I’m going to read ‘Pierced for our Transgressions’, and think about the issue for myself.

    April 25th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
31. Timothy Keene says:
    

    If Word Alive has split from Spring Harvest because Spring Harvest insisted that Steve Chalke speak at it, then Spring Harvest seems totally out of order. If they have split because Word Alive insisted that Spring Harvest cut their links with Steve Chalke, then I think they are out of order. On the issue of Penal Substituionary Atonement (PSA), I think the basic position of Tom Wright (one can cavil at the details) is right: PSA is a biblical position rightly affirmed by the church down the ages but not always affirmed in ways that does it justice. To oppose inadequate accounts of PSA should not be confused with opposition to PSA itself. Whether Tom Wright’s account of PSA is better than that of Pierced for our Transgressions is an interesting discussion point. We are in debt to Pierced… for its comprehensive account of PSA and I hope that the authors and all other parties, including UCCF welcome debate about the best way to express PSA and the implications of PSA and even discuss where PSA may omit or obscure something of value in the scriptural witness to the Work of Christ.

    April 25th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
32. POd says:
    

    Some interesting posts. I, personally, welcome any discussion re: PSA.

    Word Alive NEVER insisted that SH cut their links w/ Steve. This has never been a witch hunt – just that Steve not be given a platform to teach during the W/A week.

    April 25th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
33. Drew Whitehead says:
    

    hey guys……..WWJD rght now?

    God looks on the heart….HE alone knows those who SEEK (from their hearts) TO MISLEAD others….

    I see neither Steve Chalke, UCCF OR Spring Harvest with a ungodly desire to do so….

    All this is noy=thong more than the divisiveness of the enemy….

    Let God ALONE do the judging and let’s get on with worshipping Him who is worthy of it.

    Man, let’s stop breaking God’s heart and declare that the devil WILL NOT come out the winner in this sad standoff.

    In Jesus’ name…….

    April 5th, 2008 at 7:05 pm