My Attempt at Optimism about the Emerging Church Hits Another Bump

This column by Tony Jones confuses me.

The entire column is full of affirmations of what all Christians believe about Jesus: incarnation, humanity, mission. Sounds good to me.

Then, out of nowhere, this rocket against Bob’s favorite doctrine, the substitutionary atonement of Jesus:

Some people today may find it compelling that some Great Cosmic Transaction took place on that day 1,980 years ago, that God’s wrath burned against his son instead of against me. I find that version of atonement theory neither intellectually compelling, spiritually compelling, nor in keeping with the biblical narrative.

And then back to the incarnation and God becoming one with us.

OK. Let’s assume for a moment that this isn’t just a drive-by rock thrown at the window of traditional conservative evangelicals. Let’s assume that Tony Jones really is stunned that anyone has found an outlandish theory like substitutionary atonement in the New Testament. Let’s assume that this invented idea of an atonement is truthfully skewered as something ridiculous like a “Great Cosmic Transaction.” Let’s assume that there’s nothing in the New Testament that would ever lead anyone who is trying “keep to the Biblical narrative” to conclude that God’s wrath burned against his son in our place. Let’s assume that a person who finds the substitutionary atonement “compelling” has been thrown way off course by listening to ranting loons like J.I. Packer.

Is there anyone who wants to make all those assumptions? Anyone? One? If you came in a bus, they will wait. Just one hand?

Looks like we’re out of luck. Seems the room is full of people who believe in the incarnation, believe Jesus became one with us, believe in the humanity of Jesus, believe in the loving, Trinitarian God and STILL believe that Jesus bore the Father’s wrath against sin in our place. What a strange group.

Wait. What’s that? That’s what almost every (non-Orthodox) Christian believes? That’s what the theology, tradition and liturgy of the church has been saying, in varying ways, for centuries?

Oooh. Well never mind. I thought we really had a problem here, but apparently most of us have no problem holding these things together, and didn’t know that in order to hold onto a “compelling” version of the Biblical narrative, we need to toss that substitution stuff under the bus.

I know there are vigorous discussions of substitution going on all the time, and I don’t buy all that everyone says. But I’ll still take Isaiah 53 as my commentary on the death of Jesus. We don’t have to agree on every jot. But toss out the propitiation? I’ll take that on my order please.

If no one minds, I’m going to keep on believing all of it. Christianity has enough divisions without having to deal with without personalizing the faith down to what isn’t ridiculous to me.