I'm getting the impression that there is a lot of polarising going on between reformed evangelicals who emphasise PSA as the dominant articulation of the atonement and those they accuse of pseudo-evangelicalism or even preaching another gospel.
The so-called pseudo evangelicals accuse the neo-calvinists (if I've not just invented the term) with an individualistic gospel which is all about 'I', about doctrine, packaging everything into doctrinal formulations because they are in some way products of enlightenment thinking when mystery was sacrificed to reason. They are into the 'saving moment' - justification and are 'saved' and are not happy to communicate that they are also 'being saved' - sanctified.
I think we need to hold a lot of things in tension instead and not align ourselves with either extreme - for it would seem that they are both reacting against each other. Interestingly at college, I think that there is a fair spread of those who emphasise PSA as a doctrine and those who do not.
I get the impression that very few lecturers would deny PSA and most of us in the lecture room over the last few weeks in discussion about these things understand that God's justice IS God's love and do not have a problem with the wrath, however we are aware, as people who aim to be missional about the gospel that when it is a stumbling block to others because of a combination of their own life-experiences and perhaps the Church's failure to communicate PSA clearly, it is healthy to explore how we articulate it and perhaps reassess not what happened on the cross, that can not change but how we talk about it without compromising the scriptures. A real challenge!
I listened to Al Mohler after Joel Green and the juxtaposition between the two was interesting.
(If you can get over the fact that this is a guy who likes the sound of his own voice, sponsors his radio show with adverts about buying gold and goes on and on initially about housing down-turn, there is a lot here that is interesting).