Lighthouse Trails Research Journal
6
Atonement Rejected!—continued from previous page
of a virgin, did not think of himself
as the Son of God, and did not see
his purpose as dying for the sins of
the world. 20
If what Borg is saying is true, then we
would have to throw out John 3:16 which
says God so loved the world He gave His
only Son, and we would have to dismiss the
theme of a blood offering that is prevalent
throughout all of Scripture. In the Old
Testament, it is clear:
For the life of the flesh is in the
blood: and I have given it to you
upon the altar to make an atonement
for your souls: for it is the blood that
maketh an atonement for the soul.
(Leviticus 17:11)
But Borg rejects this emphasis:
To think that the central meaning of
Easter [resurrection] depends upon
something spectacular happening to
Jesus’ corpse misses the point of the
Easter message and risks trivializing
the story. To link Easter primarily
to our hope for an afterlife, as if our
post-death existence depends upon
God having transformed the corpse
of Jesus, is to reduce the story to a
politically-domesticated yearning
for our survival beyond death. 21
What is behind this mindset? Listen to
one New Ager describe what underlies this
line of thought:
Jesus was an historical person,
a human becoming Christ, the
Christos is an eternal transpersonal
condition of being. Jesus did not say
that this higher state of consciousness
realized in him was his alone for all
time. Nor did he call us to worship
him. Rather, he called us to follow
him, to follow in his steps, to learn
from him, from his example. 22
Volume 7—No. 5
Fosdick would resonate with this. When
he says, “Christ’s sacrificial life and death
are too sacred to be so misrepresented,”
he means that Christ is an example to be
followed, not an innocent sacrifice for our
guilt and thus worthy of praise and worship.
Satan wants desperately to be worshiped
and adored as God. He hates all that Jesus’
death stands for. Jesus Christ, God in the
flesh, purchased with His own blood the
lives of those written in the Book of Life.
A very popular author today, William
Paul Young (author of The Shack) also
rejects the idea that Christ’s shed blood was
needed to save man. He has come right
out and said this openly. 23 And yet, many
Christian leaders promote both Young and
The Shack without any qualms.
The Bible says, “without shedding of
blood is no remission” (Hebrews 9:22), and
also, “He appeared to put away sin by the
sacrifice of Himself” (Hebrews 9:26). Are we
to reject these Scriptures and other ones as
well that speak of the atonement because it
doesn’t sound logical? Scripture tells us that
the carnal mind is at enmity with God. We
need to recognize that the Bible is God’s
revelation of Himself to man. It is our final
authority, and we must adhere to the truth
of its teachings.
THE IMPLICATIONS
any in the emerging church may in-
sist they do not hold to the distorted
view on the atonement that this article has
described. But it is important to understand
that the underlying nature of this view of
rejecting the atonement is panentheistic
(God in all) and pantheistic (God is all),
which is the “fruit” of practicing contem-
plative mysticism. To put it in plain terms,
one of the key characteristics of the emerg-
ing church is engaging in mystical prayer
practices (i.e., contemplative). This in
turn produces a drastic change in spiritual
outlook that over time takes on panenthe-
istic views. And when that happens, a new
perspective on the atonement always occurs
M
because when one believes man is divine
(god within), then he believes man does
not need to have anyone make atonement
for him. A substitutionary death (taking a
sinner’s place) on the Cross would not be
necessary and in fact, would be an insult to
man’s own divine nature. It would be hu-
miliating. Like Thomas Merton said, if we
really knew what was in each one of us, we
would fall down and worship one another. 24
He and other contemplatives say that man’s
biggest problem isn’t a sinful nature; no, it’s
that he does not realize he is divine.
If Jesus’ going to the Cross and shedding
blood was merely an act of service and sac-
rifice, an example for others to follow, and
was not actually a substitutionary payment
for the sins of humanity, then why cel-
ebrate the resurrection as so many churches
do? It would make no sense. Churches that
cling to contemplative/emergent ideologies
and practices should consider this. While
they cling to one (contemplative), they’re
on the road to denying the other (the atone-
ment) . . . even if they don’t realize it.
Endnotes:
1. Beka Horton, Church History and Things
to Come (Pensacola, FL: Pensacola Christian
College, 1997 printing), p. 156.
2. Harry Emerson Fosdick, Dear Mr. Brown
(New York, NY: Harper & Row, Publishers,
1961), p. 136.
3. Harry Emerson Fosdick, The Modern Use
of the Bible (New York NY: The Macmillan
Company, 1924), p. 230.
4. Harry Emerson Fosdick, Dear Mr. Brown,
op. cit., p. 135.
5. Ibid., p. 134-135.
6. Riverside City Church, New York
City, http://www.the riversidechurchny.org/
getinvolved/?fosdick-speakers.
7. Interview by Leif Hansen with Brian
McLaren, January 8 th , 2006); Part 1: http://bleed-
ing purple podcast.blog spot.com/2006/01/bri-
an-mclaren-interview-part-i.html; Part II: http://
bleedingpurplepodcast.blog spot.com/2006/01/
interview-with-brian-mclaren-part-ii.html).
8. Ibid., part II.
9. Alan Jones, Reimagining Christianity
(Hoboken, NJ: Wiley and Sons, 2005), p. 132.
Endnotes conclude on page 25
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2019