Lighthouse Trails Research Journal
4
Atonement Rejected!—continued from page 1
would vehemently object if someone told
them that emerging church leaders don’t
like the Cross. They would jump up and
say, “Yes, they do. I’ve heard them talk
about Jesus and His going to the Cross.
They say they love the Cross.”
Some emerging church leaders do say they
love the Cross, but an underlying theme has
entered the church. It says that while Jesus’
going to the Cross was an example of sacri-
fice and servanthood that we should follow,
the idea that God would send His Son to a
violent death for the sins of mankind—well,
that is not who God is. A loving God would
never do that! Such a violent act would make
Christianity a “slaughterhouse religion.” 1
Liberal theologian and pastor of the Riv-
erside Church in New York City, Harry
Emerson Fosdick (1878-1969), believed
that the doctrine of the atonement, where
“Jesus suffered as a substitute for us” because
of our sins, is a “precivilized barbarity.” 2
In his book, The Modern Use of the Bible,
Fosdick says that Jesus’ going to the Cross
should be seen as an example of a life of
service and sacrifice and not compared with
“old animal sacrifices” and “made ‘a pious
fraud’ played by God upon the devil.” 3 In
Fosdick’s book Dear Mr. Brown, he states:
Too many theories of the atonement
assume that by one single high
priestly act of self-sacrifice, Christ
saved the world. 4
Fosdick ends that statement with a
pronounced—“No!” He insists, “These le-
galistic theories of the atonement are in my
judgment a theological disgrace.” 5 Fosdick
considered the idea that God would actually
send His Son to die on a Cross to take our
place to be the basis for a violent and bloody
religion. He rejected the biblical message of
an atonement and substitutionary sacrifice.
Fosdick was the pastor of Riverside Church
of New York City from 1925 to 1946. While
he has been long gone, his ideologies have
Volume 7—No. 5
remained intact and have drifted right into
the evangelical church through emergent
leaders. In October 2006, Riverside Church
held the 5 th Fosdick Convocation in honor
of their former pastor. Two of the emerg-
ing church’s most influential teachers were
there as speakers in honor of Fosdick—Brian
McLaren and Tony Campolo. 6 As I will
show you, McLaren resonates with Fos-
dick’s view of the Cross.
FALSE ADVERTISING FOR GOD
n an interview, Brian McLaren ques-
tioned the idea of God sending His Son
to a violent death, calling it “false advertis-
ing for God”:
I
[O]ne of the huge problems is the
traditional understanding of hell.
Because if the cross is in line with
Jesus’ teaching then—I won’t say, the
only, and I certainly won’t say even
the primary—but a primary meaning
of the cross is that the kingdom of
God doesn’t come like the kingdoms
of this world, by inflicting violence
and coercing people. But that the
kingdom of God comes through
suffering and willing, voluntary
sacrifice. But in an ironic way, the
doctrine of hell basically says, no,
that’s not really true. That in the end,
God gets His way through coercion
and violence and intimidation and
domination, just like every other
kingdom does. The cross isn’t the
center then. The cross is almost a
distraction and false advertising for
God. 7 (emphasis added)
What an extraordinary example of faith
under attack. If McLaren is right, all those
who have ever lived and believed in Christ’s
atonement have been misled and wrong.
McLaren has taken the freedom to recon-
struct what faith means by distorting the
Scriptures, or worse yet, saying the very
opposite of what the inspired Word of God
says. This is blasphemy! McLaren also states:
And I heard one well-known Christian
leader, who—I won’t mention his
name, just to protect his reputation.
‘Cause some people would use this
against him. But I heard him say it like
this: The traditional understanding says
that God asks of us something that God
is incapable of Himself. God asks us to
forgive people. But God is incapable
of forgiving. God can’t forgive unless
He punishes somebody in place of the
person He was going to forgive. God
doesn’t say things to you—Forgive
your wife, and then go kick the dog
to vent your anger. God asks you to
actually forgive. And there’s a certain
sense that, a common understanding
of the atonement presents a God who
is incapable of forgiving. Unless He
kicks somebody else. 8
To further elaborate on McLaren’s rejec-
tion of the message of Christ’s atonement
through His blood, we look to Episcopal
priest Alan Jones. In his book Reimagining
Christianity, Jones carries through with this
idea that God never intended Jesus’ sacrifice
on the Cross to be considered a payment
for our sins:
The Church’s fixation on the death of
Jesus as the universal saving act must
end, and the place of the cross must
be reimagined in Christian faith.
Why? Because of the cult of suffering
and the vindictive God behind it. 9
The other thread of just criticism
addresses the suggestion implicit
in the cross that Jesus’ sacrifice was
to appease an angry God. Penal
substitution [the Cross] was the
name of this vile doctrine. 10
Brian McLaren has endorsed Reimagining
Christianity and says of the book:
Jones is a pioneer in reimagining a
Christian faith that emerges from
Continues on next page
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2019