MWR : MB professor apologizes for remarks

Last updated November 24.

Send letters to the editor, or suggestions for our stories or Web site, to MWR‘s editors.

April 26, 2010 issue

Print this article.

2 comments on this article.

Tags: News Bible and theology

MB professor apologizes for remarks

By Mennonite Weekly Review staff

A Mennonite Brethren seminary professor has apologized for remarks he made about a theory of the atonement.

Mark Baker, associate professor of mission and theology at MB Biblical Seminary-Fresno, Calif., wrote a letter of apology to the British Columbia MB conference executive and pastors for statements in public and in writing on penal substitution.

The magazine of the Canadian Conference of MB Churches, Mennonite Brethren Herald, reported on the controversy in its April issue.

British Columbia conference minister Steve Berg sent an e-mail to the seminary board, saying: “It is troubling to us that Mark Baker states that penal substitutionary atonement is unbiblical. We believe that penal substitutionary atonement is an essential part of the biblical presentation of how Christ’s death on the cross and resurrection saves us.”

Baker replied that he regretted that he “wrote that penal satisfaction is not biblical… . I regret that some people have felt that by critiquing the theory of penal substitutionary atonement I am rejecting their ministry or claiming God does not use them… .

“I regret that some people reading my books and articles interpreted me as communicating that everyone who hears a presentation of penal substitution theory experiences God as an angry, judgmental figure.”

Baker also apologized for how he responded to two people who asked a question at a study conference last year on “Confessing Christ in a Pluralistic World.”

Baker added that “God’s work through the cross is richer and deeper than any of our explanations of it. Therefore I advocate following the New Testament in using a diversity of images and metaphors to proclaim the saving significance of the cross and resurrection.”

Penal substitution — which holds that Jesus Christ took the punishment sinners deserve, satisfying God’s requirement for justice — traditionally has been evangelicals’ dominant way of understanding the atonement.

Comments

This news article is an excerpt from the full article in the MB Herald on April 26. Whenever an editor excerpts, it is difficult to retain the full sense of the original piece.

The article is explicit in noting that Mark Baker's position regarding various metaphors for atonement remains consistent with his previous position. The following quotation from the MB Herald article clarifies this.

“Although Baker’s basic theological position, which is outlined in his book and articles, remains unchanged, he says he hasn’t always communicated in the most accurate or charitable ways. In his letter, Baker says he regrets that he ‘wrote that penal satisfaction is not biblical. I recognize that those who use the penal substitution theory are seeking to faithfully interpret the Bible.’”

At MBBS we remain committed to the MB Confession of Faith (particularly Article 5 on "Salvation"). All of our faculty have made the commitment to believe and teach and practice in a manner consistent with the Confession. Jesus alone is Savior. Jesus is the only way to God. All who put trust in Jesus are assured of salvation.

Lynn Jost, MBBS President

- Lynn Jost (apr 28 at 5:57 p.m.)
After reading this, I am glad I chose to enroll and Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary.

Approaching the Bible with this pluralistic mindset as Mark Baker does to come to the conclusion that Penal Substitution is just a "theory," is a mistake. Any time we study and interpret scripture, we have to keep in mind that cultural context and language of the writers and original audience.

As for the MB Seminary...I do appreciate schools like this one as well as GGBTS who have professors with varying backgrounds and perspectives. However, Mark Baker's statements show his complete lack of critical thinking regarding doctrine. His statements following the remarks show a hint of elitism since "God’s work through the cross is richer and deeper than any of our explanations of it..."

Also, his statement that "those who use penal substitution theory are seeking to faithfully interpret the Bible," shows his opinion that we start and end with this doctrine regardless of Biblical study. Furthermore, Baker stated "I regret that by critiquing the theory of penal substitutionary atonement I am rejecting their ministry or claiming God does not use them..." This side step apology is ridiculous and is a targeted insult to his critics who simply pointed out his error in doctrine.

Instead of allowing Baker to make apologies that are not apologies, let's see an organized debate. Baker vs. anyone who teaches penal substitution.

- Jason (nov 9 at 11:50 a.m.)

Comment on the article MB professor apologizes for remarks

The purpose of comments is to engage in dialogue. We expect commenters to treat authors and each other as each would want to be treated. Respectful criticism is welcomed; offensive comments or parts of comments will be removed by the site administrator. Name and comment will be posted; email address is for follow-up only and will not be made public.