I am not inclined to controversy and find much of it unproductive. But I think there are some very large issues at hand.
There is a remarkable divide happening among professed Christians today, and Adrian Warnock is pointing it out to us over here. I am not old but I have lived through the revision of many doctrines in the Western church -- the nature of Scripture was considered a "non-essential" in the 70's and 80's -- then there was the doctrine of eternal punishment in the 80's -- and just now both the centrality of the church and the wisdom of the Creator in forming of gender is up for grabs. The move is to make every thing optional to orthodoxy.
We can bicker about the widening of these boundaries, none of which I agree with. But at the meaning and accomplishment of the Savior upon the cross, here we must stand. UCCF is to be commended. It is not pride, but humility, that compels people to hold fast to the truth of God as revealed and as agreed upon for 2000 years. It is pride to think to re-write the word of God or to think our day is wiser than 2 millennia of godly study and conclusion. It is humility to draw those lines with grace and a desire to see agreement, and to point out error without maligning those who teach it.
As the debate goes on, I would add this: we must beware of the slippery use of misquotation. John Stott in agreement with Chalke? Here is Stott: We strongly reject, therefore, any explanation of the death of Christ that does not have at its center the principle of "satisfaction through substitution" . . . .(158, Cross of Christ)
And we must beware of those who represent church history as mixed or divided. Let us check out the facts. Having read McLaren's treatment on the various theories of the atonement, I found his treatment historically inaccurate and a misrepresentation of the facts. Substitution lies at the heart of all theories.
As the debate rages on, may we have the diligence to check out the references and quotations on either side. While we draw lines in the sand, our goal is also to convince of error those who wish to minimize the substitution of the Savior for sinners at the cross -- and to persuade them to embrace the full teaching of the NT.