Zeal For Truth

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.