Note: This is the last planned article in the series
A common criticism of the Emerging Church is that they deny, or underemphasize, the penal substitution theory of atonement. Penal substitution basically states that Christ was punished in our place, thus serving justice and allowing God to forgive people.
Emerging Church on Penal Substitution
It is incomplete: In response to such statements, some in the Emerging Church object that others overemphasize substitutionary theory of atonement and ignore other important aspects of atonement. Such a view is too narrow an understanding of atonement and of Christianity in general, they allege. For instance, Brian McLaren has written this on the subject:
I think the gospel is a many faceted diamond, and atonement is only one facet, and legal models of atonement (which predominate in western Christianity) are only one small portion of that one facet. … So, rather than focusing on an alternative theory of atonement, I’d suggest we ponder the meaning and mission of the kingdom of God.
It is Not Historical
Those seeking a wider understanding of atonement often support their position from church history. They would point out that penal substitution was not the preferred understanding of atonement for the Early Church. There was a mix of ideas about atonement in the Early Church, but most held to something much closer to Christus Victor that penal substitution. Penal Subistution did not become the major view until the 11th century, when it was popularized by Anselm.
Emerging Church on Atonement
I have not read anywhere where an Emerging Church leader has denied the truth of penal substitution. As seen above however, some think that it fails to do justice to the complete biblical picture of atonement.
A few emerging Church leaders have written favorably about the Christus Victor view of atonement. Jason Clark (an Emergent U.K. leader) writes:
In essence Christus Victor is the explanation that atonement is about the incarnation of Jesus into this world, and of participation and sharing in the suffering of humanity, taking them to the cross, so that God triumphs over evil and all of creation is restored and recreated.
He states than some later theologians misrepresented this view and turned it into the ransom theory - which states that Christ’s death served as a ransom to Satan. The point of Christus Victor however, is that Christ defeated sin and death.
That is not to say that anyone is teaching Christus Victor as the sole (or best) theory of atonement. The idea is still that no single theory can do justice to atonement. Besides the two already mentioned, other theories of atonement that are biblically sound and need to be included to have a complete picture of atonement include: recapitulation theory taught by Irenaeus and the moral influence theory taught by Abelard.
Overall, I’d say that for all sides this is largely a debate among theologians and book writers, and not so much on the “man on the street” level.
We’re studying the atonement for the next 7 months in my church’s men’s Bible study. Should be really interesting.
Here is the syllabus:
Problem: We Were Cursed
Solution: Jesus Became a Curse for Us
Problem: We Were Unforgivable Sinners
Solution: Jesus Expiated Our Sin and Gave Us Access to the Father
Problem: God Hated Us As His Enemies
Solution: Jesus Propitiated God and Made Peace Between Us and Him
Excursus/Application: The Cross and Christmas
Problem: We Were in Slavery to Law, Sin, and Death
Solution: Jesus Redeemed and Ransomed Us from Slavery
Problem: We Were Guilty Before the Father
Solution: The Father Justified Us, Declaring Us Innocent in Jesus
Problem: We Were Unrighteous
Solution: The Father Imputed Jesus’ Perfect Righteousness to Us
Problem: We Deserved Eternal Punishment and Forsakenness
Solution: Jesus Was Punished and Forsaken In Our Place (Penal Substitution) I
Solution: Jesus Was Punished and Forsaken In Our Place (Penal Substitution) II
Solution: Jesus Was Punished and Forsaken In Our Place (Penal Substitution) III
Solution: Jesus Was Punished and Forsaken In Our Place (Penal Substitution) IV
Problem: We Were Under the Dominion of Satan and Death
Solution: Jesus Conquered Satan and Death and Transferred Us Into His Kingdom (Christus Victor)
Problem: We Were Faithless
Solution: Jesus Was Faithful On Our Behalf, Purchased Our Faith, and Taught Us Faithfulness (Christus Exemplar)
Problem: We Were Spiritual Orphans
Solution: The Father Adopted Us in Jesus and Reconciled All Things
Atonement Applied I: The Atonement in the Church and Worship
Atonement Applied II: Sanctification and Glorification
Also, I don’t see the argument that penal substitution wasn’t adhered to by the early church as a very legitimate one. They were mistaken; the Bible clearly gives penal substitution significant attention. There are legit reasons for other views of atonement, but “the early church believed it” isn’t one of them. There was a lot of heresy going around in the early church (as there is now), and we have to be careful to understand that. Just because they’re “early church” doesn’t make them right.
Likewise, just because we’re the modern church and have all this history from which to build doesn’t necessarily make us right. We have to see what the Bible says and decide from IT if our theology is correct.
I have tried not to voice too much of an opinion on this EC stuff, but since this is the last post in the series and I feel I am more equipped to have an opinion, I will take a little more liberty here.
I understand that EC is sort of a reform movement. And the church could use reforms in some areas, but when it comes to emphasis of particular doctrines I think we should gage what extent a teaching should be emphasized based on the emphasis in the epistles. These are the letters written directly to the church. So if we are consider which teachings should be emphasized the most, we must go to the epistles to find out how much emphasis the writers put on the teachings in question. Anything less would be a digression from New Testament emphasis; this becomes apparent when we realize the principle of progressive revelation. Certainly there is no problem with going back to the gospels, but they can only be completely understood in the light of the epistles because of progressive revelation.
In my opinion, this is the problem with the Narrative theology stuff. And that’s also why I feel a de-emphasis of Christ’s bodily atonement as a substitution for mankind is in error. The epistles are full of this teaching. I could cite many scriptural references to support this, but I assume anyone who has read the epistles to any degree would automatically know this. All of the problems and solutions Darius mentioned that would be part of his Bible study reveal the epistles’ emphasis. The only one I don’t agree with 100% is the answer to the spiritual orphans question. And that’s not because the answer isn’t true or that the concept is entirely incorrect, its just that the concept of adoption as presented in the New Testament isn’t the way we think of it today. But that’s just a minor technicality.
“Also, I don’t see the argument that penal substitution wasn’t adhered to by the early church as a very legitimate one.”
Yep.
“There was a lot of heresy going around in the early church (as there is now), and we have to be careful to understand that. Just because they’re ‘early church’ doesn’t make them right.”
Yep.
“Likewise, just because we’re the modern church and have all this history from which to build doesn’t necessarily make us right. We have to see what the Bible says and decide from IT if our theology is correct.”
My sentiments exactly.
Great comments, Chris. I’m not very familiar with the Narrative theology vs. Systematic theology argument, but you seem to have nailed my misgivings with the Narrative approach on the head.
The danger with focusing so much on the gospels is that it can tend to affirm “Jesus as moral teacher” and weaken “Jesus as Savior from our sin.”
“I have not read anywhere where an Emerging Church leader has denied the truth of penal substitution.”
McLaren has come quite close to it though, by recommending Chalke’s book “The Lost Message of Jesus,” in which Chalke calls the idea of penal substitution “divine child abuse” and “false.” McLaren may not use those words (since he would never want to be caught dead actually holding a position on anything), but by recommending an author who does, he is logically guilty by association or quite irresponsible with his book recommendations.
What I meant by the early church argument is largely that it shows penal substitution (especially as the dominant or sole) idea of atonement has not been the dominant position of the Church. The problem is that some groups believe it has been, because it has been what their denomination or tradition has prominently taught.
And no one is saying (besides many Catholics) that arguments from church history are the deciding arguments. It is still scripture that’s the most important, but it’s perfectly valid to bring up what past people have believed scripture teaches. And I think it is right to be more skeptical of ideas that pop up that have had little or no support in church history (such as dispensational premillennialism).
And the church could use reforms in some areas, but when it comes to emphasis of particular doctrines I think we should gage what extent a teaching should be emphasized based on the emphasis in the epistles.
I can see your reasoning here Chris, and I identify with the purpose, but I think this is as arbitrary as anything.
We shouldn’t isolate any particular portion of scripture, NT or OT. Instead, the emphasis should be on the entire bible. Even if, in light of NT liberty, we are not subject to the specific regulations in the OT - there are still solid principles in it just as essential to Christian doctrine as those in the epistles. Moreover, we also must let the scholarly pursuit of languages, history, philosophy and anthropology illuminate the context of scripture, so that we aren’t subject to revisionism or whimsical winds of doctrine.
“We shouldn’t isolate any particular portion of scripture, NT or OT.”
Thus, the need for Systematic Theology.
“We shouldn’t isolate any particular portion of scripture, NT or OT. Instead, the emphasis should be on the entire bible. Even if, in light of NT liberty, we are not subject to the specific regulations in the OT - there are still solid principles in it just as essential to Christian doctrine as those in the epistles. Moreover, we also must let the scholarly pursuit of languages, history, philosophy and anthropology illuminate the context of scripture, so that we aren’t subject to revisionism or whimsical winds of doctrine.”
I wouldn’t say I’m advocating isolation. I agree that the whole counsel of God should be taken into account. Certainly the Old Testament is important in a number of respects: the Genesis account of creation, the fall of man, Messianic prophecy, types and shadows of that which was to come, historical context for the genealogy of Hebrew people and therefore Jesus, and an introduction to Yahweh, etc. And I agree that taking into account the languages, history, philosophy and anthropology of the peoples of the Bible can be a great help in understanding context, etc. However, we must remember that the Old Testament examples that we have been given were written “for our admonition” (1 Corinthians 10:11). They weren’t written directly to the church. That is precisely why, as you mentioned, we are not subject to the Law. So an emphasis on that which is presented in the epistles ensures that the correct instruction is given to the right audience; it doesn’t mean that we forget everything God ever said. Certainly if we do this, it will protect us from revisionism.
That’s where Systematic theology comes in, it helps to avoid Biblical isolationism. You can’t just focus on the gospels, or the epistles, or Deuteronomy, or Revelation.
“That’s where Systematic theology comes in, it helps to avoid Biblical isolationism. You can’t just focus on the gospels, or the epistles, or Deuteronomy, or Revelation.”
I agree. When you review the “Pauline revelation” it is evident that Paul had a system in place. I don’t particularly like to use the word “system” just because, to me, it implies a mathematical formula. But nevertheless, that is one way of describing the hermeneutical rules Paul used to present a clear teaching about Christian life that was predicated on his understanding of the Law and the Prophets. This understanding was illuminated after his conversion, and was made complete by the Spirit of Truth.
There is some disagreement on whether Paul wrote the book of Hebrews. I believe he did, but even if he didn’t, this book is perhaps the most perfect example of progressive revelation; it reviews God’s dealings with the Hebrew people interpreted in light of Jesus’ high priesthood, yet it speaks of principle Christian teachings that are mentioned in the Old Testament and the gospels to some extent, but are more completely understood in the epistles:
1Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,
2Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.
(Hebrews 6:1,2)
Another thing, in conjunction with the principle of progressive revelation, is that scripture should be used to interpret scripture. And because of progressive revelation, the old has to be interpreted in light of the new. For instance, the high priesthood of Melchisedec mentioned in Genesis can only be fully understood in the context of Christ’s high priesthood because Melchisedec was a type of Christ (see Hebrews chapters 5,6,and 7).
It’s going to get me into trouble here, but I think that Systematic Theology does more isolating then biblical theology (as in Vos, or Ladd) does, and even narrative theology. I say this with many systematic theologies on my shelf (Berkhof, Strong, Grudem, Ryrie…etc).
Although there are parts of scripture that are quite systematic, take my favourite NT book Romans as an example, the vast majority of scripture is not. Then when it is, it’s taking OT teaching, and showing how it fits into the new covenant. There is really nothing in scripture that really matches up with what systematic theologies do. No where do we see someone gathering all the verses that deal with a particular topic (say the sovereignty of God), putting them together and then making sweeping theological pronouncements about what scripture teaches on that particular topic.
I’m not saying that this should never be done, but I honestly think it’s been overdone in today’s church. What this type of understanding of scripture does is remove the verses in question from their surrounding text, and in the worst systematic theologies turn them into mere proof texts, and in the best provide only part of the picture of what is going on. This is where the isolation comes in. You can ask any Calvinist why they believe that we cannot choose God on our own and they likely will be able to quote verses to show why, but they often don’t know the context of the verses and this is the problem that narrative theology is trying to solve.
“No where do we see someone gathering all the verses that deal with a particular topic (say the sovereignty of God), putting them together and then making sweeping theological pronouncements about what scripture teaches on that particular topic.
I’m not saying that this should never be done, but I honestly think it’s been overdone in today’s church. What this type of understanding of scripture does is remove the verses in question from their surrounding text, and in the worst systematic theologies turn them into mere proof texts, and in the best provide only part of the picture of what is going on. This is where the isolation comes in.”
I agree with this to some extent. Certainly we ALWAYS have to give attention to the context, the audience, the covenant, etc. Some of what people call systematic theology is really just bad hermeneutics.
Let me also say that no one can ascertain the full meaning of scripture without the aid of the Holy Ghost. I know there are some who take this idea too far and ignore everything else, but nevertheless we shouldn’t throw out the baby with the bathwater.
On a similar topic, involving the confirmation of systematic theology inside the narrative gospels…
http://twog.wordpress.com/2007/11/07/preservation-and-perseverance-part-iii/
Again, GoogleBot is Darius. For some reason, it likes to sign me in as GoogleBot sometimes, and won’t let me sign in as Darius.
The atonement was the apex of human history. God did not form man or the rest of creation before slaying Christ on the Cross - before the foundation of the world.
Isaiah 53 looked forward to that glorious day.
2 He was despised and rejected by men,
a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering.
Like one from whom men hide their faces
he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
4 Surely he took up our infirmities
and carried our sorrows,
yet we considered him stricken by God,
smitten by him, and afflicted.
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,
and by his wounds we are healed.
10Yet it was the LORD’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the LORD makes his life a guilt offering,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand.
11 After the suffering of his soul,
he will see the light of life and be satisfied;
by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many,
and he will bear their iniquities.
The author of Hebrews(9) reminded us of the importance of the atonement:
22In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.
23It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24For Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God’s presence. 25Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. 26Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, 28so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.
The Emergent Church started out with good intentions- to reach the post modern world. But as the movement has progressed, in order to be more palatable to the world they continue to compromise the truths God. The EC now questions the trinity, the atonement, that Jesus is the only way to heaven, the absolute truth of the bible, and has called for a 5 year moratorium on discussions of whether homosexual acts are sins.
No one here has talked about D.A Carlson’ son Jason was a leader in the early EC until they started to move away from truth.
2 Tim 4:3For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.
Jason now is speaker to large crowds and warns Christians about the dangers Emergent church movement. He puts up quotes from the EC leaders on the screen. People in the crowd grieve at the heresies coming out from the EC movement.
I suspect that the EC will continue move farther and farther away from truth. I believe in the same way liberalism devastated the mainline churches, the emergent church movement will attempt to devastate the evangelical church.
Based upon prophecy, I think they will eventually succeed. The EC will be able to fit in the one world church system after the rapture, where “christians”, Catholics, Muslims, Hindus, Mormons, Buddhists and others can all come together under one world governing religious board in order to the bring “god’s kingdom” to the world.
You might be right. Hopefully, the EC is purified and becomes just another God-centered denomination.