The Baptist Times editor, Hazel Southam stated that the Evangelical Alliance (EA) had raised the stakes with its criticism of Chalke, a well-known Baptist Minister. Southam also put forward the view that the EA’s organised public symposium was meaningless if the organisation had already ruled out Chalke's viewpoint.
Chalke's book, "The Lost Message of Christ" provoked scorn from conservative evangelicals after several pages debated the idea that God punished His son in sending him to the cross – in what is commonly known as 'penal substitution'.
The Evangelical Alliance's website released a statement saying Chalke was "avoiding key biblical texts" from which the idea of penal substitution had arisen. The EA then went further and asked the reverend to reconsider his views, saying that he had an "insufficient appreciation" of the extent to which the idea had shaped Evangelicalism.
Southam wrote:
"It appears that the Rev Steve Chalke is once again under fire from the Evangelical Alliance. The EA’s statement, however, appears to raise the stakes considerably. While proposing symposium to examine the atonement and acknowledging that 'a few evangelical scholars have recently questioned aspects of the penal substitutionary view,' it states the EA's case very clearly in advance – and calls on Mr Chalke to reconsider his views. This is troubling for several reasons. By taking this approach the EA is setting itself up for a thoroughly difficult time. As well as being a highly respected Baptist Minister who has given good service to our own denomination, Mr Chalke is a long-standing member of the Alliance who has worked closely with its leading figures. In so publicly taking him to the task, the EA is bound to beg the question as to what happens if he refuses to recant."
In contrast to the views of the Evangelical Alliance, a number of Evangelicals and Baptists have expressed their support for Chalke's views, however most have not admitted this publicly. Some have commented that their silence in the matter is a result of the backlash that Chalke experienced in releasing his views publicly.
In addition commentators have expressed their concerns that signing up to the EA's statement of faith implies belief in the penal substitution theory. This in turn would lead to the problem certain evangelicals may have if they did not hold this belief yet wanted to sign up to the EA's statement of faith.
Southam concluded the editorial, "While drawing careful lines around one’s theological position may be understandable and even necessary, without an allowance for theological growth under the guidance of the Spirit such statements may become simply substitutes for thought. We may assume that the original EA Basis of Faith was designed to be inclusive of all Evangelicals; it would be sad to think that its result was to exclude any."