Dear Holly, Dear Holly, It was good to hear about your mission year and how you are following that up with an interest in the kind of lifestyle Shane Clairborne, a Protestant Francis, advocates. I have some questions for you about such matters, but I want to get to your question before I run out of time […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":197,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1736],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1956","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-emerging-movement"],"yoast_head":"\n
\nIt was good to hear about your mission year and how you are following that up with an interest in the kind of lifestyle Shane Clairborne, a Protestant Francis, advocates. I have some questions for you about such matters, but I want to get to your question before I run out of time and space. You say that your mother told you that the emerging church doesn\u2019t believe in substitionary atonement, and you\u2019ve asked me if it does.
\nI say this all the time, but it is only because I have to: the \u201cemerging church\u201d doesn\u2019t have a creed or a doctrinal statement that all emerging churches and Christians affirm, so the answer comes down to \u201csome do, and apparently some don\u2019t.\u201d Let me explain.
\nThe best way I have seen to express the \u201catonement\u201d (the doctrine that explains what God has done for us in Jesus Christ \u2014 especially at the cross) is to say that Jesus lived and died with <\/em>us, instead <\/em>of us, and for <\/em>us. It seems to me that we are now living in a time when Christians seem to want to rally around one of these instead of all of them.
\nSo, some focus on Jesus identifying with us \u2014 and they talk about Jesus as God Incarnate, and they see Jesus as our Brother, and they find great solace in knowing that God became what we are. He became human, experienced pain and joy, felt isolation and companionship, knew disappointment and fellowship, suffered betrayal, and \u2014 this is where it is all headed \u2014 he went to the cross and experienced suffering at such a level that we know God knows what we are going through. I believe this aspect of atonement is very true and one of its greatest strengths is that it brings the life and death and resurrection together into the atonement. Some in the emerging movement attach themselves to this view.
\nOthers in the Church have focused on Jesus\u2019 cross as something he underwent instead of us. That is, he was our substitute. He died our death; he died instead of us; and the curse he experienced \u2014 God\u2019s wrath against sin by way of death (physical and eternal) \u2014 he undertook instead of us. This is called the substitionary theory of atonement; some call it penal substitution \u2014 emphasizing wrath against us experienced by Jesus. If you combine \u201cwith\u201d us and \u201cinstead\u201d of us, you can also use the word \u201crepresentation,\u201d but I want you to know that \u201crepresentation\u201d has a checkered history and some evangelicals get upset when someone says they think Jesus \u201crepresents\u201d us. I like this term, but I think we have to be careful how we explain it. He represented us both by dying with us (inclusive) and by dying instead of us (exclusive representation).
\nHere is how I see the emerging movement and the \u201cinstead of us\u201d theory. Some grew up where this was the only thing taught, and some say they grew up hearing only of an angry God who poured out his wrath on Jesus Christ, and they think that gives the wrong idea. They think the death of Jesus was an act of grace and if that is not seen, then the cross is misunderstood. As a result, some have completely chucked the idea of substitution. It is a mistake to chuck substitution. If you read Romans 1-5 you will see an emphasis on death as the \u201cpunishment\u201d (penal term) for sin, and you will see that Jesus died instead of us so that we can be saved from death and given life.
\nOthers want to emphasize the benefits of Jesus\u2019 death, the \u201cfor us\u201d part \u2014 that he died to forgive us, to reconcile us to God, to give to us a new paradigm for living (learning to die to self and sin and live to God). Many in the emerging movement, I suspect, would land here \u2014 and they might think that trying to explain how God did what he did in the cross to be beyond our comprehension. They know it works; they don\u2019t know how.
\nIn my view, the atonement involves each of these: Jesus died with us (identification), instead of us (substitution), and for us (benefaction). We need each, so let\u2019s teach each.
\nSo, now I\u2019m asking myself your question again. If we simply admit that the emerging movement doesn\u2019t have a doctrinal statement, I think you could tell your mom that you understand there is diversity in the movement on this issue.
\nI\u2019m wondering if you have heard anything in your gathering that gives you solid indication of where they stand on atonement issues?
\nWell, back to Shane. I haven\u2019t read Irresistible Revolution<\/em> and now wonder if I should.
\nBlessings,
\nScot
\nAbout these letters<\/strong>: These are letters I\u2019m cobbling together from letters, e-mails, and conversations with emerging Christians. I will pull them all together and send them to three or four persons, but they reflect conversations and letters over the last two years.<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"