A Node in the Web of the Emerging Church
Emergent Village Weblog

"Atonement Wars"? Let's Hope Not

Posted Aug 24, 10:53 AM | 8 comments | by James Mills | Link

A book review of Scot McKnight’s A Community Called Atonement by Brian McLaren:

Although “the emergent conversation” happens largely online and through informal gatherings and off-beat conferences (what some have called un-conventions), it also happens in the more standard format of books. Some of these books — like Mark Scandrette’s recent Soul Graffiti: Making a Life in the Way of Jesus — are artistic and literary, combining memoir and religious nonfiction. Others are multi-author works like An Emergent Manifesto of Hope, bringing together a wide variety of voices to explore a general subject through short essays. Still others are more scholarly works, like Peter Rollins’ How (Not) to Speak of God, which, even though Peter speaks in the academic tongue of polysyllabism on many occasions, has an uncharacteristically playful tone for a “serious” book.

Joining this creative and well-written stable of books is Scot McKnight’s new A Community Called Atonement, part of the new Living Theology series with Abingdon Press, edited by Tony Jones. The series aims to deal with “real theology” on a deep level, but in a way that is approachable and accessible to a wide range or readers, not just professionals in the academy. Here are four words I would use to describe this important debut book in this important new series by this important theologian.

First, it is timely. The book comes just as some scholars in the U.S. may be tempted to sharpen their pens to join a westward expansion of an atonement war begun in England over the last few years. That conflict began as my friends Steve Chalke and Alan Mann found themselves in hot water for raising provocative questions about a popular theory of atonement in their book The Lost Message of Jesus. Some Evangelicals, largely ignoring the main point of the book — the good news of the kingdom of God — said Chalke and Mann no longer belonged in their tribe because for them, Evangelical means a) subscribing to that particular theory of atonement, and b) equating that theory with the gospel. For a thoughtful online response to this controversy, I’d recommend Bishop N. T. Wright’s recent article available.

Meanwhile, here in the U.S., a number of Evangelical authors have also been raising questions about atonement. Among them are Dallas Willard, whose The Divine Conspiracy critiques what he calls “the gospel of sin management,” Hans Boersma, whose Violence, Hospitality and the Cross exemplifies a hospitable Reformed tradition (and is highly regarded by McKnight), and Joel Green and Mark Baker, whose Recovering the Scandal of the Cross seeks to counter the popular (some might say dominant) reduction of atonement understanding to one theory. More recently, Mark Baker edited Proclaiming the Scandal of the Cross, to which I contributed and which shows how various metaphors and theories of atonement are being preached in churches today. Each of these books has stirred up enthusiastic support (and I am among the enthusiastic supporters) along with some strong criticism.

For Scot McKnight to step into this tense terrain may recall the old maxim about fools rushing into territory avoided by angels, but it’s not only fools who rush into conflict: peacemakers are also drawn there, and this is the spirit in which McKnight enters the fray. Like an ambassador arriving on a troubled shore hoping to avert violent conflict, McKnight comes not to fire salvos or drop bombs on behalf of one side or the other, but to invite all sides to the table seeking better understanding.

That brings a second word to mind regarding the book: irenic. McKnight isn’t advocating a mushy “let’s all get along” evasion of the issues, which are many and important. But he is seeking to practice what we preach whenever we preach atonement: that God calls us to reconcile with God, ourselves, one another, and all creation. That means that the way we treat one another when we disagree about atonement can’t be separated from what we preach when we preach atonement. Theory and praxis are profoundly inseparable. This conviction helps explain why people with whom I imagine McKnight disagrees are treated in these pages gently, respectfully. McKnight prefers to “catch people being right” over exposing where he thinks they’re wrong, and thus seeks to build a community of atonement through his manner of addressing the issue. Normal academic discourse does not require this irenic tone, but in keeping with his theme, McKnight is seeking to follow a higher standard.

I would also call this book comprehensive, weaving together many threads of atonement theology in one tapestry. The book relies on a golfer’s metaphor rather than one from weaving. One is glad for many clubs, McKnight says, because each is useful in various situations. One would hate to have to drive with a putter or putt with a sand wedge. Similarly, various theories of atonement serve various functions in various settings according to McKnight, which is why all should be kept in the bag and used appropriately to the situation.

To be comprehensive, McKnight has to see the game differently than some for whom faithful golf may have become a matter of “using the five iron in all situations from the first tee to the eighteenth hole.” So he offers helpful ways of describing the “game” as a whole — speaking of the restoration of cracked eikons and identification for incorporation.

One more descriptor: the book is evocative. It lightly touches a number of important subjects along the way which are fascinating but tangential to this book’s purpose. Among important topics McKnight opens up in ways that leave this reader hungry for more are the centrality of metaphor in theology (p. 36 ff) and the sociopragmatic dimensions of our theologizing about atonement (p. 44 ff). Perhaps they will become future contributions to the Living
Theology series.

We could conjure up many examples of the socio-pragmatic outworking of atonement theology — a reason to take this subject very seriously. For example, one might argue that an exclusive focus on one theory of the atonement could result in an administration that approves of military invasions and even torture. Similar thought experiments could be launched in a number of areas from ecology to poverty to the treatment of undocumented refugees. Although McKnight doesn’t get into these kinds of specifics (nor should he in a book of this sort), he does devote a very important chapter (16) to the relationship between a well-formed atonement theology and the practice of justice.

We have now come full circle to the word timely again, since the previous hypothetical situation is, for American Christians, less far-fetched than it may appear. At this critical time in history, I believe we need, not atonement wars (or other kinds of theo-combat), but rather mature and generative conversation on atonement, so we can together go back to the Scriptures and in their light savor the rich meaning of Christ’s saving work. A Community Called Atonement joins books by Willard, Boersma, Green, Baker, and others as an excellent and accessible resource for this conversation, informed by both current and historic scholarship.

For those who persist in claiming that people in the emergent conversation are unconcerned with truth and morality, or are only concerned with candles and guitar distortion, this book is one more demonstration that something robust and material is going on. The fruit of this conversation, of course, must go beyond books. Informed by this timely, irenic, comprehensive, and evocative book’s content and inspired by its manner and tone, we in the emergent conversation must keep building the community called atonement which Jesus gave his life to make possible and real and transformative in our world. May it be so.

Brian McLaren (brianmclaren.net) is an author, speaker, and former pastor active in the emergent conversation. His next book, Everything Must Change: Jesus, Global Crises, and a Revolution of Hope will be released October 2.

Bookmark this article using Remarkable!

Welcome to the Reader's Forum

1Chris Epting 08/24/2007 08:42 PM

I think this is a very important conversation. I hope that the “emergent church” can challenge us mainliners to re-engage such central theological topics. See my poor attempt to address this at ecubishop.wordpress.com

2Brad 08/25/2007 03:24 AM

It seems that “justice” is the recurring theme that I hear over and over as I study the “Emergent” church. That being so, why is there never a mention of abortion???

3Chris Epting 08/26/2007 09:15 PM

Yes, there are certainly “justice issues” there. Justice for the innocent unborn; justice for women left to bear and raise children abandoned by the father. Painful, complex issues not easily solved by slogans.

4Mark DeVine 08/27/2007 07:43 PM

I also welcome the conversation regarding atonement and the contribution Scot McKnight is making to it.

I also welcome a real non-defensive conversation rather than an “atonement war.” One way to facilitate such a conversation is to treat as “provocative” not only, for example, Chalke’s “child-abuse” statement but the inevitable evangelical push-back against such language. If one dialogue partner consistently wins the “helpfully provocative” tag while others are tarred with the “divisive” tag, it’s hard to see how authentic conversation can occur.

5Darryl Rearson 08/29/2007 09:07 PM

This is a more general comment but I have recently been “entering the conversation” through reading and listening to podcasts. Like Brian would say he is a passivist sympathizer I am an emergent sympathizer. I am elder in a presbyterian church in the Philadelphia area who is encouraged to hear things from the emergent conversation that I have heard in my church for the past 15 years. It is nice to feel on the cutting edge sometimes.

That’s who I am. What I want to say is related to a Statement by Brain in the discussion at the AAR from the posdcast. Brian said that most of the “hate mail” that comes is from the “conservative”, “evangelical” christians. I think that a part of the reason for this (and only part) is the stance of those I hear from the emergent conversation. The stance seems to be something like this.

“We see ourselves not right not left but in the middle. As such, we invite conservatives to stay out of the conversation because they would not be interested. We invite the liberals because they have much to add to the conversation.”

I am just entering this conversation and this stance may be more a reaction to the “hate” than an initial stance but it concerns me. It seems that movements usually have and us and them. The “evangelicals” seem to be the them. I get the sense that the movement is away from evangelicalism and as a result toward bring back the liberals into the fold. It feels to me like how those who preach tolerance are tolerant of everyone except Christians.

I would suggest that to stay in the center, the conversation needs to be open to all. Or you will in the next 10 year fulfill the prophesy of the fundamentalist that you will end up just like the liberal movement and be called post emergent and neo-liberal. No offense to my liberal siblings. When we went our separate ways (liberal and conservative) we both lost key pieces of orthodoxy. I would suggest finding ways to incorporate conservative but emergent sympathizers into the dialog intentionally. Seek to get generous criticism into the dialog.

6Carol 09/10/2007 04:34 AM

Here’s my background. Grew up presbyterian. Mostly have gone to church. Am a woman married for 23 years and have 5 kids. Thru a series of events have felt let down by the church. Maybe moreso since i was heavily involved.

That’s when I discovered the emergent conversation. And tapped into it. I have continually wanted to give up on the church. But my example is that Jesus has not, therefore is it really an option? I feel leaving would really be an action driven by pride.

I like so much of what the emergent church is saying. I especially liked Brian McLaren’s book The Secret of Jesus. But THe Generous Orthodoxy was a little out there but thought provoking. I am tired of going to a church that has no hope of reaching our culture. Since I have 4 teens I think about this alot. And I am no longer afraid of the culture. I can actually love the culture and the people in it. Don’t you agree that Jesus finds his creation interesting. Why else does he spend his time praying over it? That has a negative connotation, maybe he also praises his Father for it??

Anyway here’s one of my theories:

Basically there are three divisions in christianity. Eastern, Protestant and Catholic.
The three strands. I think Jesus desires to make a strong cord out of the three strands. It would glorify God to bring these three cords togethere.

I wonder if “emergent church” is not a beginning to wrap his church together is a cord of three. Certainly this gives hope when you consider where the current generation is and the fact that they are unafraid to test things.

Semper reformata!

7Dave 09/12/2007 12:55 PM

It’s troubling that emergent leaders question the doctrine that Christ died for our sins in our place. Through the history of our holy church, through schism and war, this cherished doctrine has been an absolutely essential component of the gospel. I can’t recall a single church father, church mother, saint, or reformer that questioned whether or not Christ’s death saved us from the penalty of sin. If such a strong tradition means nothing, here are several scriptural passages (among many) that explicitly uphold this sacred doctrine:

Hebrews 9:28 so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.

1Peter 3:18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit,

Hebrews 10:12 But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God,

How can anyone evade the gospel truth of these verses? How can anyone call every spirit filled leader in church history a liar in regards to the atonement? I don’t understand why emergent Christians are so disgusted by the traditional and scriptural understanding of atonement. What can possibly be gained in rejecting it!? Greater social acceptance from non believers? Conformity with post-modern axioms? Are these worthwhile rewards for spitting on the cross of our Lord? I pray that my emergent brothers and sisters would reject this wholly worldly pursuit and return to the ancient and eternally relevant understanding of our Lord’s death that brings us to a more complete realization of God’s divine love.

8Adam 07/02/2008 03:26 AM

Dave-
I find it interesting that since Sept. 12 NO ONE refuted your comments. Maybe it is because you are right.

Add a comment











Add Emergent Village to

RSS/XML Feed

Join our mailing list: