Gospel Prism

Most of my church knows and some of my friends know that my church used to be part of a denomination called the Evangelical Covenant Church. Since we left the ECC, I have had to continuously explain numerous times to different people why we chose to leave. Some have told me about rumors they had heard about why we left the ECC, and as rumors go, they weren’t the most accurate of truths. So I figured I would give a one-stop place where all the questions could be answered and for the future, I could just direct them here. First, here is why we did NOT leave the ECC:

1. The ECC was cold and heartless

The ECC was anything but cold and heartless. I met some wonderful, gracious, and Christ-loving people in the ECC. Their character exemplified humble servanthood. Never once did I feel spurned or rejected. I really believe one of the ECCs greatest strengths is its desire to welcome people of all different kinds, even though ‘those kinds’ were vastly different from them.

2. The ECC is an old-foggie denomination

Quite the contrary, the ECC is growing quickly with many young people, and especially minorities, joining it in vast numbers. For an old Swedish denomination, it has a wide open vision.

3. The ECC was unduly bureaucratic in its transfer of ordination

In fact, I really do believe it was quite cumbersome. But I finished all of my classes and jumped through the hoops, so even though I thought the process was a bit over the top, I figured, “When in Rome…� Hard work should never keep you from doing what you believe is right.

But here are the reasons why me and my church did leave the ECC:

1. The Via Media Perspective

At first the via media (‘middle road’) perspective is what attracted me to the ECC. It is the philosophical position the ECC takes on doctrinal issues. (2) For example, they do not take a hard position on most Evangelical theological tenets for the purpose of unity over division. They baptize infants and dedicate infants, dependent on the will and conviction of the parents. They believe the Bible is the “holy scripture, the old and the new testament, is the Word of God and the only perfect rule for faith, doctrine, and conduct.� (1) This sounds wonderful until you examine whether the ‘perfect rule’ is actually perfect in its entirety. Hence, inerrancy is not a word that the ECC would use, again holding a middle ground between inerrantists and inspirationalists. What is most peculiar, however, about the ECC is that though it holds to a via media view on everything, they do NOT hold this view on women’s ordination.

They view women’s ordination as a ‘justice issue’ (a view I heard by the President of the ECC, Glenn Palmberg in a class I was taking). Because it was a ‘justice’ issue, no ECC church would be allowed to hold a complementarian view (although this rule was grandfathered in, so there are some complementarian ECC churches). But this hard line stance against complementarianism seems to go against the very core of via media. But for some reason, that contradiction did not appear too apparent for many. Regardless of whether one was a complementarian or an egalitarian, the ECC’s hard stance on complementarians seemed to be a double standard that the ECC chose to arbitrarily enforce.

The reason why the via media position was attractive to me later became the reason why it became a detraction. At the time, I was wrestling with the Bible’s view on baptism. The ECC gave me and the church a way to hold to both positions (or neither position) and that seemed to be right where I was. However, in taking such a position, it left me vulnerable to many people’s concerns. People would often ask me, “So what does the ECC believe and what does Wellspring believe?� And in a world where relativism reigns, people quickly accepted my half-hearted response when I would say, “We believe in a middle of the road position on all things.� Now I am sure that the ECC and North Park Theological Seminary (the ECC’s flagship seminary) would define things much more than how I explained things, but I don’t think it was ever more clear to me. Via media was a burden for me and for the church and it left us empty in a sea of confusion.

2. Via media and the Atonement

Another way in which via media was exercised was in the atonement, and for me this was a lynch pin event in my departure from the ECC. Even though women’s ordination was a non-negotiable that was outside the governance of via media, the atonement was subject to via media’s filters. Covenant Affirmations, the ECC’s hallmark theological document, by Donald Frisk has this to say about the atonement:

The Scriptures do not present us with one fully-developed theory of the doctrine of the atonement. Rather the New Testament uses a variety of images and metaphors to interpret the meaning of Christ’s death on the cross.(3)

I don’t disagree with Frisk’s view that there are different images of how the cross of Christ is to be seen. However, Frisk categorizes these different images as merely that, images. They are equally weighted and therefore have equal validity and equal emphasis. I also do not know if his categorizations (he views the atonement as from the perspective of temple worship, the market place, the law court, the battlefield, and from personal relationships) are as cut and dry as he makes them out to be. In my reading of the NT, there is much more cohesion in understanding of the work of Christ than Frisk claims there is. Texts like Romans 3:25 and Paul’s understanding of the Greek word hilasterion are not small, isolated instances of substitution. Leon Morris’ landmark work The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross was the reason why Cambridge University put a page limit on doctoral dissertations. In it, his rigorous word study on the word (which by the way, the ESV translates as ‘propitiation,’ which I believe is a right translation of the concept because of Morris’ study) hilasterion, tells us that the understanding of the appeasement and satisfaction of God’s wrath was not a Pauline view of atonement. This is rooted in the OT worship of God in view of the mercy seat (which encompasses Temple Worship, contra Frisk).

From Peter Abelard to Peter Paul Waldenstrom to the Congregationalist Horace Bushnell who all rejected the idea of ‘penal subsitution’ (Christ bore our sins by bearing the penalty of our sins), their rejection of penal substitution is simply not consistent with the Bible’s view of the bearing of sin. John Stott puts it well in his book The Cross of Christ when he says:

It is clear from the Old Testament usage that to ‘bear sin’ means neither to symapthyize with sinners, nor to identify with their pain, nor to express their penitence, nor to be persecuted on account of human sinfulness (as others have argued), nor even to suffer the consequences of sin in personal or social terms, but specifically to endure its penal consequences, to undergo its penalty.(4)

And then Stott goes on to show from the Bible that this was true. I fail to see how Frisk’s Covenant Affirmations successfully relegates penal substitution, in light of the Bible, to a subsidiary view on par with other perspectives when the picture of Christ’s penal substitution is throughout the Bible.

Also, the ECC’s view of the atonement flows from one of their hallmark theologians of the past, Peter Paul Waldenstrom. Waldenstrom is known by the phrase he coined, “Where is that written?� (5) In 1872, he published his “famous sermon on the atonement.� (6) In it he wrote the following:

1. That through our fall no changed occurred in the heart of God.

2. That, therefore, it was neither cruelty nor wrath in the mind of God which, as the result of the fall, obstructed man’s salvation,

3. That the change which occurred in the fall was a change in man alone in that he became sinful and thereby fell away from God and the life which is in him,

4. That, as a result, an atonement was needed for man’s blessedness, but not an atonement which appeased God and rendered him once more gracious, but (an atonement) which took away man’s sin and again rendered him righteous

5. This atonement took place in Jesus Christ (7)

So here were my questions for PP Waldenstrom and for the ECC regarding his statements:

1. As a man who believes where is it written, after saying that God has no wrath in His mind, how do you see Romans 1:18 which so clearly says: “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth�? How can you say “where is that written� when it is so plainly written that there is a wrath of God?

2. I agree that no change occurred in the heart of God because He is unchangeable. However, the ‘therefore’ in point 2 is terribly weak and illogical. It is a leap to assume that God cannot have wrath because he is unchanging in His nature. If God is truly a righteous and just God, then He will be wrathful against sin. If after Hitler killed six million women and children and men, and I sat as his judge at Nuremberg, and I merely said to him, “Mr. Hitler, I am not wrathful against your acts,� I would not be a just judge. People would be screaming for my head as an unjust judge. They would think I am no good and perhaps nothing more than a villain in cahoots with Hitler.

Why should we or PP Waldenstrom believe God would be anything less than righteously angry against the terror of sin? God’s wrath does not need to be contradictory to His goodness. The reason people like Waldenstrom have a problem with the wrath of God is because they can only view it from the perspective of a wrathful, sinful human being who exhibits anger sinfully.

3. Why in the world would atonement be needed (point 3), if God was not wrathful against the sinner? Alongside with that, number 4 is simply not needed because in the sinner would never lose blessedness if God has no anger toward the sinner. The sinner could always say to God, “God, I didn’t sin because it was the sin that made me sin, so I am not guilty.� And such a person would no longer need atonement because he is in actuality innocent, because he would not be to blame, but the sin. A 1-year old baby that throws a hard ball off a roof of a building that strikes another child and kills him is not guilty of murder because he was not conscious of his sin (see Romans 1:19 which argues that people are guilty because they have an innate conscience that understands the nature of sin, but a baby that does not understand the ramifications of throwing a hard ball off the roof, would not know or understand the consequences of his sin).

If I am not guilty, but my sin is guilty, then I would not be punished for my sin, and therefore, I would not need the remedy for my sin (atonement).

But it seems reasonable that in a blame-shifting culture like ours, it is easy to say, “It’s not my fault. The alcohol made me get into a car and strike that minivan with the family in it. It’s not my fault. It’s the disease of alcoholism.� There is a strange dichotomy that Waldenstrom and our culture makes, which is that sin is responsible for our evil actions, but we are totally innocent. God punishes then the sin but He is never angry at us [the sinner]. But still, that begs the question, “Did Jesus die for the abstraction of sin, this nebulous, amorphous entity that remains outside of our will and bodies?� Whereas, for us sinners, we are good and clean and righteous, so we didn’t need atonement, only our sins needed the atonement. That seems to contradict the nature of sin. Paul writes:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. 24Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. (Romans 1:18-25)

For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23)

John Piper notes:

In Romans 14:23 Paul says, “Whatever is not from faith is sin.” Therefore, if all men are in total rebellion, everything they do is the product of rebellion and cannot be an honor to God, but only part of their sinful rebellion. If a king teaches his subjects how to fight well and then those subjects rebel against their king and use the very skill he taught them to resist him, then even those skills become evil.

Thus man does many things which he can only do because he is created in the image of God and which in the service of God could be praised. But in the service of man’s self-justifying rebellion, these very things are sinful.

I fail to see why Jesus Christ would ever have had to atone for sin at all in light of Waldenstrom’s logic.

3. The Buffet Table View

When I was speaking with some of the ECC leadership before we left the denomination, I told them my struggles on the atonement. They assured me that I could hold to my view of the atonement. However, that wasn’t enough for me. On something that I believed that was so rudimentary to my faith as a Christian, this was no small issue. It did not help that I was told that there were people in the ECC that held to an orthodox view of the atonement. It troubled me that there were some in the ECC who absolutely did not believe in the substitutionary view of the atonement. It troubled me that what allows me to be free in Christ (my righteousness in Christ credited to my account through His atonement) would actually conflict with others who I was co-sharing in the Gospel. At an ECC event, I even had one pastor come up to me and tell me that she heard that I was struggling with the ECC and atonement. She said to me, “Can I hear more of your story because I actually have the same problem with the ECC, but the thing is, I hold the OPPOSITE view as yours. I don’t believe Jesus died for my sins and took my place.� That seems to be validation of everything I had been feeling.

I really believed the Gospel is at stake when understanding the work of Christ. If I do not believe that Christ died for my sins because I justly deserved God’s righteous wrath, it would be very difficult to understand grace. Who would need grace, if sin and the sinner wasn’t that bad and didn’t deserve the condemnation that the Lord righteously gives it? Why should there be a hell if God had no wrath against sinners and rebels against His character? And finally, why would Jesus bear everything he did on the cross, including the forsakenness He felt from His Father, if sin were the problem and we were innocent? Why would Jesus have faced the ferocity of his captors and torturers if there wasn’t the full weight of appeasing the righteous wrath of God against sin? Sin is that great and grace in Christ is that much greater.

John Stott again so aptly describes penal substitution and its implications:

The doctrine of substitution affirms not only a fact (God in Christ substituted himself for us) but its necessity (there was no other way by which God’s holy love could be satisfied and rebellious human beings could be saved). Therefore, as we stand before the cross, we begin to gain a clear view both of God and of ourselves, especially in relation to each other. Instead of inflicting upon us the judgment we deserved, God in Christ endured it in our place. Hell is the only alternative. This is the ‘scandal’ of the cross. For our proud hearts rebel against it. We cannot bear to acknowledge either the seriousness of our sin and guilt or our utter indebtedness to the cross. Surely, we say, there must be something we can do, or at least contribute, in order to make amends? If not, we often give the impression that we would rather suffer our own punishment than the humiliation of seeing God through Christ bear it in our place.

(8)

On something like the work of Christ, I was not looking for a buffet. Buffets are nice because you get to choose what you want, but you are never happy at the end with it. Everything begins to blend together and taste the same. I’d rather be at the Chez Penisse (a wonderful bay Area restaurant) where everything is served perfectly and deliciously, where my appetite is not only satisfied, but it is done with full pleasure and joy. This is what a substiutionary view of the atonement does for me, or as Augustus Toplady puts it so well in his hymn “Rock of Ages�:

Rock of Ages, cleft for me,
Let me hide myself in Thee;
Let the water and the blood,
From Thy wounded side which flowed,
Be of sin the double cure;
Save from wrath and make me pure.

Not the labor of my hands
Can fulfill Thy law’s demands;
Could my zeal no respite know,
Could my tears forever flow,
All for sin could not atone;
Thou must save, and Thou alone.

Nothing in my hand I bring,
Simply to the cross I cling;
Naked, come to Thee for dress;
Helpless look to Thee for grace;
Foul, I to the fountain fly;
Wash me, Savior, or I die.

Final Thoughts

In a way, via media and the atonement are linked together. It’s the ECCs via media perspective that gives them a broad tent even on a crucial issue like the atonement. They would argue that the atonement is not a reason to divide. I would say that if not the atonement, then there really are very few issues Christians should hold exclusively. They would say that they indeed allow for pastors and churches to hold a penal substiutionary view of the atonement as long as those same pastors and churches allow others to hold completely opposing views on the work of Christ. I just happened to think that this cut to the core of the Gospel and anything less than penal substitution would compromise the Gospel that I believed in my whole Christian life.

I am not advocating a mass exodus from the ECC per se. There are many people in more theologically liberal denominations trying to change it from within. I believe this happened in the SBC in the early seventies when the SBC was becoming a bastion of liberal theology. But it took Biblicists from within to affect change in the SBC and now it is on the forefront of orthodox theology (on certain fronts).

But as for me, I did not want to fight this battle within my own family. Since I had joined the ECC, I had always felt as though I was a fish swimming in an opposite current. Conferences that were held by the ECC featured speakers with topics on issues that did not affect my heart. But truly, the greatest motivation to consider leaving was the ECCs view on the work of Christ.

I told this to one of the leadership as he was trying to convince me not to leave. I told him that although he might have believed in susbitutionary atonement, there were many who didn’t. I did not want to be in a table of people who opposed my view on the Gospel and say they were my family, when there was another table that together relished my view of the Gospel. The one thing I cared for the most about my faith was not only opposed, but often times ignored as a non-essential. It was at that point that I knew that I had to leave, as my conscience dictated.

Again, there are many Christ-honoring, God-glorifying people in the ECC. I know one day I will see some in heaven with me. But I just know that I am more satisfied outside than looking longingly from the inside at the joys of the outside glory of the Gospel that exalts the wrath-averting, substiutionary work of Jesus Christ on the cross.

—-

(1) Covenant Affirmations, p. 13.
(2) There is a whole historical background as to why the ECC held a via media position, which dates back to its founding when it came out of the Church of Sweden. For more details on the split and via media, you can refer to the ECC’s church history book, By One Spirit by Karl A. Olsson (Chicago: Covenant Press, 1962).
(3) Donald Frisk, Covenant Affirmations, p. 93.
(4) John Stott, The Cross of Christ, p. 143.
(5) Olsson, p. 110.
(6) Ibid., p. 110.
(7) Ibid., p. 110.
(8) Stott, 161.