Steve Chalke, Spring Harvest, UCCF and the Atonement

Adrian Warnock seems to have scooped the interesting news that Spring Harvest is breaking its partnership with UCCF (the Universities and Colleges Christian Fellowship) and the Keswick Convention because they cannot agree about Steve Chalke and what he wrote about the atonement. Dave Warnock, no relation, seems to consider this totally bad news. But in my first comment on Adrian’s post, I actually welcomed this split. So, what is happening here?

It is now more than 30 years since I became a committed evangelical Christian (from a rather vaguely Christian background) through the Cambridge Inter-Collegiate Christian Union (CICCU), which is an affiliated group of UCCF. For four years (1974-1978) I grew as a Christian with the help of the excellent Bible teaching at CICCU. My only real complaint is that CICCU neglected teaching about the Holy Spirit. It was after I left Cambridge that I experienced for myself the power and the gifts of the Spirit. So, I have always respected UCCF for its good teaching but regretted that, because this was not fully balanced, for years I missed out on any real experience or understanding of the Holy Spirit.

I am amazed to realise that it is now more than 20 years since 1986 when I first attended Spring Harvest, then in rather primitive accommodation at Prestatyn. That year Clive Calver personally signed me up for the Evangelical Alliance, of which I have remained a personal member. And I remember a then rather young Steve Chalke taking a prominent role. By this time I appreciated, as I would not have done during my Cambridge years, the restrained charismatic teaching of Spring Harvest. I attended several more times over the next ten years or so. During this time Spring Harvest became established as one of the main driving forces of the evangelical church in the UK, especially among charismatics. Among the speakers I heard there was John Wimber. But by the last time I attended, 1997 I think, I felt that Spring Harvest was running out of steam, becoming a tradition rather than a driving force.

It was always rather a surprise to me that Spring Harvest chose to partner with UCCF and the Keswick Convention to put on the Word Alive week especially for students. My image of UCCF was still of the CICCU of the 1970’s, strong on doctrine but weak on the Holy Spirit. From what Adrian’s commenters have said, that is no longer a fair assessment, as there is more openness now to charismatic teachers like Terry Virgo. If so, I welcome it. But I don’t think Virgo, as a complementarian, would have felt at home at Spring Harvest in the late 1980’s, where there were many women speakers, including Faith Forster who took a strongly egalitarian line.

So it is no surprise to me that these rather unlikely partners have decided to go their separate ways. This will allow them to concentrate on their respective core teachings and practices, hopefully not as rivals but recognising one another’s distinctive contributions to the body of Christ. It is sad, but perhaps inevitable, that what prompted this parting of the ways was a doctrinal dispute.

Meanwhile there is continuing confusion about what Steve Chalke actually said. This is reflected in the comments on this post at the influential American evangelical blog Between Two Worlds. Here is what I wrote there to explain the situation:

The teaching which Chalke has rejected, in somewhat immoderate language, is not the general idea of substitutionary atonement but the specific teaching that God punished and killed Jesus. See this summary of his teaching, where he explains Hodge’s view, which he rejects, as that God was “bringing about the violent death of his Son“.

I note that Stott, as quoted by Adrian Warnock, has also rejected this idea: “We must never make Christ the object of God’s punishment“, i.e. God did not punish Jesus.

And in a careful and detailed study of the atonement (see my analysis of it) Packer also avoided saying that God punished or killed Jesus.

So it is quite clear to me that the concept of the atonement about which Chalke was so negative is not the one which is held by Packer or Stott.

Now I might argue that Steve Chalke was unwise to write what he did. If he didn’t foresee the storm which he has stirred up, then he was rather naive. If he did foresee it, why did he go ahead and write this? That is of course between him and God. It would certainly be unwise of me to judge him for it, for no doubt the only thing which has stopped a similar storm about some things I have written, on this blog and elsewhere, is that I am by no means as well known as Chalke.

What I can say is that sometimes Christians hold that the teaching of some other Christians is so wrong that they must speak out against it even at the cost of dividing the church. Many of those who we now count as great Christian leaders, such as Martin Luther and other Reformers, have done this. St Paul did this, when he opposed the circumcision party and even wished they would castrate themselves (Galatians 2:11-14, 5:12), language which I am sure they would have considered blasphemous. And of course we know that when Jesus opposed the wrong teachings of the religious leaders of his day he was condemned for blasphemy. Chalke may be in good company! I don’t know if he sees what he has done in this light, but it may well be that history will.

So I must disagree with Dave Warnock’s implication that it is always wrong to divide from other Christians over doctrinal issues. I agree with Dave’s comment:

I do believe that using a single model of atonement to divide the church is unscriptural and wrong.

But it is not Chalke who is doing this, but the ones who are rejecting him because of his misunderstood teaching about the atonement. Just as the Roman Catholics rejected Luther because he challenged their teaching, and so precipitated a split in the church, so it is UCCF and friends who are rejecting Chalke because he is challenging their teaching. We can hope and pray that this will not cause a lasting split. But if there is one, it is not Chalke’s fault.

Meanwhile PamBG has written an interesting post on the atonement which I would like to recommend to you. I don’t endorse everything she says. But she makes a good point about how penal substitutionary atonement is based on the popular but not truly Christian idea that

God rewards good behaviour with good things and bad behaviour with bad things. On the contrary, Christians believe that there is nothing that we can do that is ‘good enough’ to gain our salvation or other rewards from God and therefore we have to rely on the grace of God. … I think we get into trouble when we start saying that God’s ‘justice’ means that he is not capable of being gracious until he has received some kind of payment. In the event of God receiving a payment, grace is not grace but is rather a quid pro quo reward for good behaviour. … The whole point of Christianity is that the love of God is a free gift.


41 thoughts on “Steve Chalke, Spring Harvest, UCCF and the Atonement

  1. I’d be interested to know what your points of disagreement are – maybe more appropriate for the post on my blog than here.

    I note that I avoided saying “penal substitutionary atonement”. As does Sykes in his book, as does Jeffrey Johns, in fact!

    The reason *I* avoid it is that I’m not a Calvinist, never was and never will be. I don’t consider myself well-enough versed in Calvinism to want to take a stick and have a bash at it. What I’m having a bash at is this popular statement that God can’t forgive humanity unless someone gets killed in our place.

    The British Methodist Church highly discourages its preachers from preaching PSA, so I’m not staying “in the closet”; on the contrary, I’d proably get kudos for having a bash at PSA. It’s simply that I don’t think my ignorance about the theological nuances makes it fair to do so.

  2. “The British Methodist Church highly discourages its preachers from preaching PSA, so I’m not staying “in the closet”; on the contrary, I’d proably get kudos for having a bash at PSA.”


    So does this mean that British Methodists no longer sing Charles Wesley’s hymn: “And Can It Be?” with verse 1 reading:

    And can it be that I should gain
    An interest in the Savior’s blood?
    Died He for me, who caused His pain—
    For me, who Him to death pursued?
    Amazing love! How can it be,
    That Thou, my God, shouldst die for me?
    Amazing love! How can it be,
    That Thou, my God, shouldst die for me?

    And verse 5 reading:

    Still the small inward voice I hear,
    That whispers all my sins forgiven;
    Still the atoning blood is near,
    That quenched the wrath of hostile Heaven.
    I feel the life His wounds impart;
    I feel the Savior in my heart.
    I feel the life His wounds impart;
    I feel the Savior in my heart.

    Those words: “That quenched the wrath of hostile Heaven” suggest (to me at any rate!) that some kind of extremely personal and significant transaction is going on between heaven and earth; between God the Father and God the Son.

    Or is Wesley’s hymn an embarrassment these days? Certainly not to an old “Calvinist” like me!! – it was the first hymn I ever memorised and sang when converted in Aberdeen 40 years ago.

  3. “… news that UCCF (the Universities and Colleges Christian Fellowship) and the Keswick Convention are breaking their partnership with Spring Harvest because they cannot agree about Steve Chalke and what he wrote about the atonement.”

    I think, Peter, you’ll find that it is exactly the reverse. That Spring Harvest is breaking the relationship with Word Alive.

    Now I’ll need to go and find the source, because I’m sure that’s what I read yesterday… well I found it on Adrian’s blog. It’s a response from UCCF that reads:

    “… We’re very sad that after 14 years of fruitful ministry, Spring Harvest has decided to end the Word Alive partnership because we feel unable to shift on this position.”

  4. Peter, thank you for the correction. Technically I am sure you are correct, and I will correct my post accordingly. In practice, assuming that Adrian’s report is accurate, UCCF and Keswick have precipitated the split by their unreasonable demands.

    As for “And Can It Be”, I can’t speak for any Methodists, but I am not at all embarrassed by this hymn. No one in this entire debate, not even Jeffrey John, except perhaps for the Sunday Telegraph’s headline writer, has denied that Jesus died, shed his blood, in order to atone for sins. And I think that most of us accept that God did have wrath towards sins but that somehow Jesus’ death quenched it. What many of us do not accept is that God was the agent of punishing and killing Jesus.

    In fact in England we don’t usually sing the verse 5 you quote. I don’t think we sang it at CICCU where this hymn was a great favourite. But I’m sure that was not for theological reasons, probably only because the full hymn is considered too long.

  5. I have no problem at all with verse 1 and we sang “And can it be” twice during Lent. It’s probably one of my favourite hymns and the only reason I tend to avoid it is that it gets sung too often.

    I have to say I’ve never seen verse 5. I’m OK with the theological concept that God’s wrath is directed toward human sin, but not with the idea that “God hated us until Jesus died”. I think we tend to hear “God’s wrath toward other people who don’t believe as I do” rather than “God’s wrath toward sin”, so you are right, I’m not particularly comfortable with singing hymns about God’s wrath.

  6. Thank you, Peter, for recommending Pierced for our Transgressions. I have heard about this book, and seen its website, but not seen the actual book. I am sure it is an important one. I have also seen the list of endorsements, but I am sceptical about them. Jim Packer for one is notorious for endorsing books without reading them; for example, he has endorsed The TNIV and the Gender Neutral Bible Controversy by Poythress and Grudem, but has admitted not reading it. Nevertheless, I am sure this is a good book and I intend to read it.

  7. “What many of us do not accept is that God was the agent of punishing and killing Jesus.”

    Peter, have you seen the new publication by ivp called: “Pierced For Our Transgressions” by Jeffrey, Ovey & Sach. It is subtitled: “Rediscovering the glory of penal substitution.”

    It is long (372 pages) and comprehensive (surveying the historical teaching of Penal Substitution from Justin Martyr to Jim Packer!)

    Interesting is the variety of Christian pastors, preachers, teachers, authors etc. who have commended the book – named in print right at the beginning: Peter Adam, Wallace Benn, Steve Brady, Lindsay Brown, D.A.Carson, Roger Carswell, Richard Cunningham, Dale Ralph Davis, Mark Dever, John Dunnet, Brian Edwards, Sinclair Ferguson, John Frame, Timothy George, Liam Goligher, R. Kent Hughes, David Jackman, Jonathan Lamb, Andy Lines, Tremper Longman III, C.J.Mahaney, I.Howard Marshall, Andrew McGowan, Martin Morrison, Michael Mazir-Ali, Roger Nicole, Peter O’Brien, J.I.Packer, David Peterson, William Philip, Mike Pilavachi, Frank Retief, Thomas Schreiner, Ian Stackhouse, Jonathan Stephen, Mark Stibbe, William Taylor, Mark Thompson, Rico Tice, Stuart Townend, Carl Trueman, Terry Virgo, David Wells, Gordon Wenham, Chris Wigram & Michael Ramsden.

    Space for only one quote on page 232 (answering the objection that: “The violence involved in penal substitution amounts to cosmic child abuse”):

    “In short, there is simply no way of avoiding the Bible’s clear, repeated and unambiguous teaching that God was in control of Jesus’ death, just as it presents him as sovereign over every other event in the entire universe. God did not merely forsee Jesus’ death; much less was he a passive bystander.” (Pierced For Our Transgressions, ivp, (c) 2007, page 232)

    Also (since I was there and heard it!) I recommend the Wednesday lecture given by Dr Sinclair Ferguson at Keswick 2006 (week 1) which deals with this very theme in the course of a one hour lecture.

    Inverness, Scotland, UK

  8. “…but not with the idea that “God hated us until Jesus died.”

    PamBG, I’m confused. Who actually believes and says that? It contradicts John 3:16 – “God loved the world in this way, he sent his only Son…”

    Jesus was sent by the Father because God still loved his sinful, rebellious self-centred world. Because he loved, he sent. But that doesn’t mean that love and wrath are contradictory. He loved, he sent, because his wrath had to be dealt with and that surely implies that the Father was actively involved in the death of his one and only beloved son?

  9. “Jim Packer for one is notorious for endorsing books without reading them; for example, he has endorsed The TNIV and the Gender Neutral Bible Controversy by Poythress and Grudem, but has admitted not reading it.”

    Fascinating interview. Ah well, all our human heroes have weak points, just like us!!

  10. I would still like independent corroboration that J I Packer actually said that he had not read the book before recommending it.
    At this point we only have Suzanne’s word that the ‘off tape’ comments were even made.
    If Dr Packer has affirmed the comment elsewhere I would be interested in seeing it.

  11. Peter H:

    I believe that central to PSA is the philosophical concept that justice requires retributive violence. I believe that Jesus preached and taught us alternative ways of living than retribution. I believe that if I have seen Jesus I have seen the Father. Therefore I believe that neither the Father nor the Son (nor, presumably the Holy Spirit) believe in retributive violence, let along the salvific effect of retributive violence. It is the concept of retributive violence being at the heart of PSA that makes me disagree with PSA.

    He loved, he sent, because his wrath had to be dealt with

    I think I need to understand WHY “God’s wrath needed to be dealt with.”

    and that surely implies that the Father was actively involved in the death of his one and only beloved son?

    I expect that we both agree that the Father and Son are part of the Trinity and therefore one. But I’d say that God gave up his life into the hands of human sin in order to “inject hope” (if you will) into a sinful human world. God in Christ willingly gave up his life.

    I expect that we disagree with WHY this happened. To me, it is a transformation of sin into hope and death into life. I don’t think that the Father made the Son do this because the Father needed his wrath to be assuaged. I think he did it because sinful humanity needed saving.

    By the way, I’ve read Chalke’s book and I think that he could have been a lot more temperate in his word usage. If you and I are going to have a conversation, please don’t assume I’m Steve Chalke or his mouthpiece. I’ve been thinking about this stuff long before his book appeared.

  12. Pam, thanks for your comments, which I mostly agree with. Certainly it was the Father’s will for the Son to suffer and die; it was also the Son’s own will, for to drive a wedge between these two wills is serious heresy. And the primary purpose of this was indeed “because sinful humanity needed saving”. But I don’t want to deny that, as one aspect of the problem of sin which needed to be dealt with, the Father’s wrath needed to be and was assuaged.

    I can also say to Peter H and others “please don’t assume I’m Steve Chalke or his mouthpiece.

  13. So, it would appear that there is no independent corroboration of the statement that Dr Packer did not not read the book in question before recommending it.

  14. Either that, Glenn, or I chose to ignore your comment. After all there is no independent corroboration that it was written by you and not your pet parrot. And your comments are sometimes so repetitive and predictable that I wonder. If you want independent corroboration, ask Dr Packer.

  15. But I don’t want to deny that, as one aspect of the problem of sin which needed to be dealt with, the Father’s wrath needed to be and was assuaged.

    Peter, since you and I are generally on the same page and since you don’t appear to view me as a hopelessly unsaved heretic, can you explain to me what you mean by “The Father’s wrath needed to be assuaged?”

  16. Well, Pam, part of my response has to be that we don’t exactly what was happening, and it is presumptuous to claim to know too much. But the Bible does speak about God’s wrath against sin, as well as God’s love and mercy towards sinners. In some way God’s wrath was dealt with so that it is no longer directed towards us humans, at least those who repent and believe. And there are verses, such as 2 Corinthians 5:19, which appear to link this termination of God’s wrath with the death of Christ. So I don’t think we can completely discount this aspect of dealing with God’s wrath. But I am not sure that “satisfying” God’s wrath is a good way of putting it, as that suggests to me that God expressed his anger in uncontrollable rage until it was spent. And I also again want to reject the idea that God punished Jesus.

    Watch out for the post I am working on on Maltese theology.

  17. As I expected. No corroboration.

    A petty and childish response, but then I suppose that is your only recourse. You lack any real evidence.

    If I am ‘repetitive and predictable’ it is only a direct match to your own broken record of unproven accusation, biblical misinterpretation.

    I will not be asking Dr Packer. Suzanne, yourself and indeed Wayne have all been party to the accusation and as noted no one can actually prove it, but then no surprises there. The onus is on you to prove it.

  18. No Peter, my comment is not libellous. I asked for independent corroboration that the ‘off tape’ comment was actually said. That is a fair request.

    Your response would appear to indicate that there is no such independent corroboration available.

    The rest of this ‘conversation between two people’ was meticulously recorded and transcribed word for word. The accusation that Dr Packer affirmed a book he had not read is reported as an ‘off tape’ comment.
    Why was it included when it did not form part of the transcribed conversation? Why was the question not asked whilst the tape was still running?

    Without the independent evidence it would appear to be an attempt to defame Dr Packer.

    Without the evidence the onus is actually on you to retract. So I would suggest you consider that before throwing accusations of libel around.

  19. Pingback: Speaker of Truth » Maintaining a good witness about the atonement

  20. Glenn, we are referring to a conversation between two people. If you don’t believe one of those two people’s report of the conversation, ask the other one. I don’t think Packer is on e-mail but I can give you an address to write to. That is a serious suggestion. If Packer has been misquoted as you allege, I’m sure he will be grateful to be told and for the opportunity to put the record straight.

    But do you realise that your allegation is a libellous accusation that Suzanne is telling a lie? If you have no corroboration of that, and are not going to ask for any, I would ask you to withdraw your allegation with apologies. I have already made it clear that I will not tolerate libellous comments on my blog, not least because it puts me legally in the wrong.

  21. OK, Peter K, I’m not sure we’re really very much in disagreement. As I said upthread, I don’t have a problem with God’s wrath being directed towards sin.

    I’m less comfortable with God’s wrath being directed towards people. I’m not at all comfortable with the idea that God was wrathful towards people until Jesus died.

  22. If I may make a comment (or two) the first one being addressed to Glenn Piper. If there is a reported conversation between two people you have the choice of believing it or not. You cannot however demand that the person reporting it proves that the conversation took place as reported. If you want to deny that it took place, I’m afraid it’s up to you to prove that it didn’t – it certainly seems strange to me to be asking for “independent proof” of a conversation that took place in private.

    Peter, I don’t think it’s a bad witness to bring things out into the open. I think it would be far worse a witness not to talk about these things and try and brush them under the carpet.

    On the topic of PSA, it seems to me that there’s confusion in a lot of people’s minds (maybe on both sides of the argument) between anger/wrath and rage.

    I’m wondering how 2 Corinthians 5:21 fits into it: “For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him”

  23. I’m wondering how 2 Corinthians 5:21 fits into it: “For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him”

    The thing is that my way of interpreting the atonement fits in perfectly well with this passage. Christ subjected himself fully to human sin – by becoming human and by making himself fully, humanly vulnerable to the sin of other human beings. He refused to act sinfully toward those who sinned against him – indeed, he forgave them. He subjected himself fully to the consequence of human sin – ‘he became sin’ – and died in consequence. But he transformed the Old Creation and overcame “sin, death and the power of the devil” (Martin Luther) through his resurrection. He ascended and sits at the right hand of the Father and it is in his reign that we know that life, truth and hope are God’s will and not death, sin and hopelessness.

    No substitution needed.

    I don’t expect PSAers to agree with me. I’m just showing that the presuppositions we bring to the texts matter. I presuppose that forgiveness is paramount to God because of Gospel teachings; therefore I presuppose that God does not believe in retributive justice. If another person presupposes that justice is not done until God has his retribution and someone dies for sin, then Christ necessarily has to “pay the price”.

  24. Charity, as the rest of the conversation was recorded there obviously exists evidence for the words spoken in that conversation.
    As the supposed ‘off tape’ comments do not form part of that provable conversation I would suggest that they should not have been included in the first place.
    To, in effect, accuse Dr Packer of making a fraudulent recommendation in regard to this book, but being unable to prove that accusation is IMHO the heinous part of this, not my challenge.

  25. Glenn, I disagree. What would have been wrong would have been to present that comment as if it were on the tape when it wasn’t. The article is very clear that the comment was not included on the tape and there is no attempt at all to be misleading about that only honesty. Which brings me back to my point that it is clear that what is being reported is a comment made between to people and there is nothing wrong as far as I can see with reporting it. As I said before you are free to believe or disbelieve it, put if you want to discredit it, it really is up to you to provide evidence to the contrary.

    I personally know of at least one other Christian leader who has put his name to recommendations of books that he has not read, getting his wife to ghost write his recommendation. I was with her while she was writing it. So I do not find this situation at all surprising.

    Pam, In the 2 Corinthians 5 verse, it’s the words “for us” that suggest there is a substitutionary aspect to what happened at the cross.

  26. We will just have to disagree Charity. To tag on an accusation of that nature knowing that you will never have to prove or disprove it because ‘oh dear, the tape wasn’t running’.
    Well, you may think that is a right way to do things Charity, but I expect better.
    The person who makes the accusation is the one who has to prove it, not the person who is challenging it.
    So either prove Dr Packer did it or back off.
    I will not be commenting on this fiasco any more.
    It has probably escaped your attention Charity, but the only reason Suzanne included the disputed comment was to try and impugn Dr Packer.

  27. I don’t see Suzann trying to impugn Dr. Packer, Glenn. Reading through the whole interview, it appears to me that it became obvious to her during the course of events and that the question only occurred to her at the end. I really don’t see any reason why she shouldn’t mention it as I could quote any number of conversations I’ve had with people. If anyone’s trying to accuse and impugn around here, it doesn’t appear to be Suzanne or the people who have quote her.

  28. Pingback: Speaker of Truth » UCCF Director: “God never forgives”

  29. Response from Spring Harvest to UCCF Press Release from Pete Broadbent:

    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.

  30. Regarding Dr. Packer’s endorsement of the TNIV and the GNBC, I asked Dr. Packer if he was aware of the comment by Poythress and Grudem that they had not looked up adelphos in the Greek lexicon before drafting the Colorado Springs Guidelines. He was quite surprised and said that he was not aware that they had admitted this.

    It was after the interview that I realized that he may not have read the book at all. So I asked him and he gave me to understand that he did not wish to spend the time involved in reading this book.

    He explained to me that sometimes he also endorses books that he does not like by making a statement that is not technically innaccurate but does not give away his dislike of the book.

    From this I infer that Christian academics sometimes endorse books that they have not read as well as books they do not agree with. I discussed this with a close friend of mine and Packer’s and he confirmed that this is standard practise.

    No one has ever proven that anything that have written in public is untrue. I would like to be judged by my record so far. I deeply regret that these things are unpleasant but I feel that the truth is sometimes overlooked when a stand is taken on a certain contentious issue and people line up for or against it without informing themselves of all the facts themselves.

  31. I made an omission in this sentence.

    No one has ever proven that anything that I have written in public is untrue. I would like to be judged by my record so far.

    I would also like to add that I made a similar comment to the above on Adrian’s blog but he censored it. However, Adrian himself made an issue out of the fact that there were 10 pages of endorsements for the book in question by “some of the greatest teachers of the church.” I cannot agree that this is relevant.

    My comment on Adrian’s blog was on topic for his post. I regret that he has stifled debate.

  32. Suzanne, thanks for the clarification.

    I find it amazing that Adrian allows people to people to suggest on his blog that you are not telling the truth and denies you the right of reply. I guess he would have considered your first paragraph off topic, but he really should at least have allowed you to cut down that part and repost.

  33. Peter,

    I did not include the first paragraph in my comment on Adrian’s blog. I thought that I was responding directly to an earlier comment in the thread. I also note that Adrian himself brought up the issue of extensive endorsements.

  34. Pingback: Speaker of Truth » More from Broadbent on UCCF - Spring Harvest split

  35. For a reasoned, scriptural view on these issues, please read “Once and For All” by Tom Smail, written before these recent disputes arose

  36. Pingback: Gentle Wisdom » Where will the evangelical bishops’ long route via Lambeth lead to?

  37. Pingback: Gentle Wisdom » Bishop Broadbent to stay away from Lambeth

  38. Pingback: The Faithworks Declaration - Gentle Wisdom

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture. Click on the picture to hear an audio file of the word.
Anti-spam image