Posted on 03/21/2008 2:16:36 PM PDT by Blogger
Celebrating the Resurrection, But Denying the Atonement
Source: Lighthouse Trails
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.--Alan Jones1
As we here at Lighthouse Trails have joined with other believers in exposing the truth about the emerging church and contemplative spirituality, we have come to learn that the core of the New Age believes that the teachings of the East and of the West must be fused and blended before the true and universal religion--for which the world waits--could appear on earth. In other words, all religions must come together under the umbrella of metaphysics (mysticism). While the average Christian would agree that this doesn't line up with Scripture, the Christian church has been overtaken by this very concept, but in a deceitful and often subtle manner. The underlying layers of this dark and anti-Christ theology rejects the very thing that can save a soul--the atonement for sin on the Cross by Jesus Christ. He was a substitute, and He took our place. Without that atonement, we are lost forever.
This weekend, people throughout the world will be celebrating Christ's resurrection. Even people who don't believe in the resurrection are celebrating the weekend and wishing Happy Easter to others. But while that seems odd to celebrate a day when you don't even believe in its reason, what is more odd is that so many Christians are celebrating the resurrection but are throughout the year promoting a spirituality that ultimately denies the atonement. Without the atonement, why bother thinking about the resurrection--it would mean nothing. The two are synonymous.
Some may be saying right now-- my pastor doesn't deny the atonement. Really? Does he ever promote Brennan Manning or Richard Foster? What about the college you attend? Do your professors ever tell you to read Henri Nouwen or Larry Crabb? And what about the women's Bible studies you attend? Do you ever read books by Keri Wyatt Kent, Jan Johnson, or Ruth Haley Barton? And what about the youth group your teens go to? Do they watch Rob Bell's Noomas and read books by Dan Kimball and Brian McLaren? And is your church involved with Rick Warren's Purpose Driven Life? You see, the spiritual formation movement (of which category all these authors and leaders fall into) has a core of mysticism. And contemplative mysticism, by its very nature, denies the Cross, the atonement, and certainly the resurrection. So to celebrate the resurrection and yet to embrace spiritual formation is a terrible contradiction. Allow us to explain: While it is true that most of the people fore mentioned do not reject the Atonement, by their adhering to and promoting the spirituality that does, they unwittingly reject it also. If this sounds too farfetched, consider this: Jan Johnson (previously mentioned), in her book When the Soul Listens, makes favorable reference to the giants of the contemplative prayer movement (Merton, Nouwen, Pennington, Keating, etc.) in virtually every chapter of her book. It can be factually proven that these individuals to whom she frequently refers believe that God is in everybody and everything. And in the spiritual view of these teachers, the Cross is not the reconciling factor between God and humanity--meditation (i.e., contemplative prayer) is!
The contemplative mind-set of true contemplatives is that God would not send His Son to a violent death on a Cross to bear the sins of others. They say Jesus is their model but cannot say He is their Savior, in the biblical sense.
Thomas Merton was probably the most influential and prominent figure in the modern day contemplative prayer movement. In response to a Muslim mystic's statement that Islam rejected the idea of Christ's atonement and redemption on the Cross, Merton responded: Personally, in matters where dogmatic beliefs differ, I think that controversy is of little value because it takes us away from the spiritual realities into the realm of words and ideas ... in words there are apt to be infinite complexities and subtleties which are beyond resolution.... But much more important is the sharing of the experience of divine light, ... It is here that the area of fruitful dialogue exists between Christianity and Islam. (from A Time of Departing, p. 59) Is the preaching of the Cross merely words and ideas that take us away from "spiritual realities"? The spiritual reality of what Merton was talking about was the contemplative spirituality that has no place for the Cross. That's why it didn't matter to Merton--it was just merely a religious concept. What really mattered to Merton was the "divine light" that one encounters in the contemplative state. This is where contemplative prayer led Merton; and we believe those who follow his path will end up at the same destination.
During this time of the year when so many churches are holding Easter services (in honor of the death and resurrection of Jesus), how many of these same churches are clinging to contemplative spirituality without even realizing what it really stands for.
If Jesus' going to the Cross and shedding blood was merely an act of service and sacrifice, an example for others to follow, and was not actually a substitutionary payment for the sins of humanity, then why celebrate Easter and the resurrection? It would make no sense. Those churches who cling to contemplative/emergent ideologies and practices should reevaluate this. While they cling to one (contemplative), they deny the other (the atonement) even if they don't realize it.
Ping for discussion on the latest Satanic fare.
THE CROSS
is the priceless fulcrum of all creation for all eras, dimensions, multi-verses . . . everything.
And the Resurrection proved it so.
And contemplative mysticism, by its very nature, denies the Cross, the atonement, and certainly the resurrection.
I simply do not think this to be true, and am astonished to read it.
The contemplative mind-set of true contemplatives is that God would not send His Son to a violent death on a Cross to bear the sins of others. They say Jesus is their model but cannot say He is their Savior, in the biblical sense.
He must be referring to the modern fad, not to the real deal. I would count Teresa of Avila, John of the Cross (catch the sobriquet there) and Francis among the great contemplatives. Francis is said to have received the Stigmata. There may have been things wrong with Francis, though I don't think so, but he did not diss the Cross or the miracle Christ worked there.
I'm inclined to suggest that this guy hasn't gone fishing much. Yeah I understand the misunderstanding that could arise from my hanging out with Buddhists (as I did decades ago), but when I hear them describe a sought after (albeit with dread) part of their mystical endeavor as "dying the great death", as a Christian I want to find another Christian to nudge and to whom I can whisper "See that bobber move there? He's mouthing the bait. Hold still, and let's see if he takes it into his mouth ...."
We are all called to die with Christ. We are enabled to follow that call because He has died and through His death we have, well, many gifts beyond telling, but among them are faith and courage and hope, hope enough to sit quietly and see our sins rise - and to see Jesus whomp them good.
YES, having defending "contemplation", I will eagerly say that I have met a number of soi-disant Christians, all of them "spiritual", (just ask them, they'll tell you) who think that my saying the Jesus Prayer or Reading the Cloud of Unknowing they can do an end run around all that messy business about, you know, the icky stuff, like, well, sin, atonement, and the cross.
I believe God will settle their hash, and when he does, I hope and pray they will have the grace to thank Him.
Mad Dawg, it isn’t surprising to me that you have trouble with what is being said here, since the contemplative mystics lifted up by the Emergents are largely Catholic. That being said, it really isn’t so much a Catholic-Protestant thing as it is a denial of Christian essentials thing. One such emergent leader calls the doctrine of the Atonement “Cosmic Child Abuse.” Another major leader says that the doctrine of the atonement depicts God as asking us to do something that He Himself can not do, that is forgive. (i.e., we are asked to forgive and punish nobody, He forgave and punished Christ). Such thoughts are on the rise as the post-modern generation adopts some of the externals of historical Christianity while denying key doctrines of the faith.
Scripture says
2 Corinthians 6:15
And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
While you may see the Buddhist’s comprehension of some sort of spiritual truth as nibbling at bait, it nevertheless ends in the vast majority of cases with his fulfilling Romans 1, seeing the truth of God and exchanging it for idols made by men. Without strong propositional truth being taught to this poor soul, we not only do him no favors but fail to carry out that which Christ has told us to do.
I’ve made no secret in our past conversations that I am not fan of Roman Catholicism; but this emergent philosophy is going further than any true Christian should want to go.
I suspect too many of those who have difficulty in grasping the significance of the Cross confuse Jesus Christ as a man who became God, instead of placing faith in God who became man.
“Mad Dawg, it isn’t surprising to me that you have trouble with what is being said here, since the contemplative mystics lifted up by the Emergents are largely Catholic.”
Well Blogger, I must say I’ve never heard of this “emergent” group, but I think you should know that the bloody atonement theory of theosis has never had much traction, if any, in The Church east of the Adriatic. By never I mean for the past 2000 years or so. The atonement theory as presented here is distinctly Western and early Middle Ages (11th century). The atonement theory you seem to espouse is a product of the Roman Church. What Merton was talking about was a much older Christian concept of uncreated light which is an energy of God which we as humans can experience. An example is the uncreated light at Mount Tabor. It is most spoken about by the Cappadocian Fathers and expanded upon and explained by men like +Symeon the New Theologian and +Gregory Palamas. Far from being dangerous, this idea is among the most profound of Christian concepts.
Catching a light and the energy of God are distinctly EASTERN concepts, not scriptural concepts. You fight such teaching more in Buddhism (though not necessarily of a light of ‘god’) and Hinduism than in Scripture.
What you will find in Scripture is Jesus being made a propitiation for our sins. (Romans 3:5, 1 John 2:2, 1 John 4:10, Hebrews 2:17); and Christ suffering for our sins, the just for the unjust (1 Peter 3:18)
Hilasmos (Latin Propitiatio) is the same word used in the Greek translation of the blood sacrifice, the Ram, in Numbers 5:8 and Ezekiel 44:27 in “sin offering.” Further in Hebrews 9:12, we read: “Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption [for us].” And, I have been told, in Greek Literature hilasmos is used in terms of appeasing the gods’ wrath.
As you can see from any normal reading of Scripture,and of the greek language which you are more than familiar with, it was a blood sacrifice that atoned for our sins. Jesus was our sacrifice. He paid the penalty for our sins on the cross. Not Eastern. Not Western. Biblical.
“You fight such teaching more in Buddhism (though not necessarily of a light of ‘god’) and Hinduism than in Scripture.”
You think Holy Orthodoxy is more akin to Buddhism or Hinduism than Christianity? Do you think that is a widely held American notion? It would explain a lot if indeed it is.
Do you sincerely believe that the purpose of the crucifixion was to slake the wrath of a vengeful God? If so, why do you suppose The Church missed that for at least 1100 years, more likely 1500?
Have a blessed Easter, Blogger and remember, “Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!”.
Certainly the Alan Jones quote is outrageous, and pathetic too. (Am I supposed to know who Alan Jones is? BTW. I mean did he do something to get himself in the papers? Sometimes it's good to be out of touch.)
The guys you're describing remind me of many Episcopalians. They sort of adopt some (only some) of what they view as mere "myth" and then exhibit almost the definition of heresy by taking their small view and trying to leverage aside the Mighty deeds of God.
Oh well ....
It is a rising development- the natural offspring of seeker sensitive married to post-modernism. Google Brian Mclaren. He’s one of the big names in their movement and a Class A heretic. This movement takes Seeker Sensitive/Purpose Driven and strips the core doctrinal foundation from it. ANYTHING is up for grabs, deity of Christ, the atonement, etc., And Christianity is being redefined for this new century. What is really scary is that a recent “Rethink” conference was held at Robert Schuller’s church which was cohosted by one of these emergent leaders. Here were some of the attendees. You’ll probably recognize a few:
George Barna
Bishop Charles E. Blake
Jim Burns
Pres. George H. W. Bush
Dr. Ben Carson
Dr. Tim Clinton
Dr. Henry Cloud
Chuck Colson
Phil Cooke
George Foreman
Jon Gordon
Dr. Michael Guillen
Lou Holtz
Jason Illian
Kathy Ireland
Dan Kimball
Larry King
Mark Kvamme
H.B. London, Jr.
Erwin McManus
Miles McPherson
Mark Mittelberg
Rupert Murdoch
John Ortberg
Nancy Ortberg
Dr. Les Parrott
Dr. Stephen G. Post
Donna Schuller
Dr. Robert A. Schuller
Dr. Robert H. Schuller
Chris Seay
Jay Sekulow
Gary Smalley
Ben Stein
Lee Strobel
Dr. John Townsend
Ben Vereen
Kay Warren
Roger Oakland, who attended part of the event, said the following about it: “Co-hosted by Erwin McManus and Robert Schuller, the conference declared that a paradigm shift is now underway. Speakers insisted that Christianity must be re-thought and re-invented if the name of Jesus Christ is going to survive here on planet earth now that we are in the twenty-first century.”
Re-inventing Christianity? Lovely. Just what we need in a world that doesn’t know there is such a thing as truth any more.
This is one of the most patheticly written articles I have ever seen. First of all, it begins by ascribing guilt by association. Second, I have listened to and read many of these and I know for a fact that most do not deny the atonement, not even substitutionary atonement (which is what I suspect the author is trying to say).
No one with any credible understanding of church history would conflate the idea of atonement with just substitution. Substitution was only a small part of the Christian understanding until it was more fully popularized and developed by Anselm in the 11th century. The most developed and well-known understanding of atonement in the early church was Christus Victor, which focuses on Jesus’ sacrifice as a release from Satan’s bondage.
This author is simply throwing mud against the wall and seeing if it will stick. The truth is that he doesn’t begin to know what he is talking about.
I think our sinful nature and our inability to accept the astonishingly wonderful gift of God's unearned and unearnable Love lead many to think that somehow if they pray a lot they will "get" some grace out of it. It's so close to the truth, but disastrously far from it as well.
As I've said elsewhere it is a popular but dangerous colloquialism to say, "Prayer works." GOD works, not my prayers. My prayers are whispers on the wind, quickly dissipated and lost, my "mental" prayers are of similar power ... that is to say: zip.
BUT, on the other hand, when I pray, I always begin by calling on the Trinity. That is the most important part of prayer, I think. It is as if I'm saying, "Okay, God: this is YOUR time. YOU take over. YOU run this. I have nothing good to add. And if you catch me thinking I DO have something good to add (as you almost certainly will - because the imagination of my heart has been out there since my youth), please, in your mercy, yank my chain -- HARD."
In the list I'm pleased to say I only recognized Dubya, Colson, Sekulow, Ireland, and I suppose one of the Shullers. (Isn't that the "Crystal Cathedral" mob?)
Here in Holy Week, we filthy papists read a lot of the Epistle to the Hebrews. And what do we read? "Our God is a consuming fire." "The Word of God is sharper than any two edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and spirit ...."
When these guys, if half of what this article and you say about they is true, fashion a mellow and California kind of God, a mental idol of the "I'm not religious, but I'm very spiritual"" gang ...
Well all we can do is hope and pray that God singes them just a little, enough to remind them that a baby helpless in swaddling clothes or a man helpless on a cross is the center of such power that the only reason He doesn't hum like a light saber is that on;y silence is strong enough to convey the majesty of Him with whom we are graced to have to deal.
We read, "God is light and in him is no darkness at all." I offer this gloss: Light burns. Light overpowers. Light drains your strength. I have received burns from the sun that made me almost delirious with pain. I have walked once in the sun until I became dizzy and could go no further. My physician looks at my harrowed and marked face and says, "You've spent a lot of time in the sun, haven't you?" and I can see him making a mental note to look out for skin cancer.
That is about mere created light. If anyone thinks that without Divine assistance he can bask at ease in the uncreated light, the light to which we are called, that person will learn, let us pray for his chastening good, what "consuming fire" is all about. Our model is not some surfer girl. It is the three young men walking in the fiery furnace, the light which feels like death but is in truth life.
Today we remember the descent of that light into the land of those who sleep and the overthrowing of the Kingdom of darkness. Yes, we should rejoice and be glad. But to be casual and relaxed? To mellow out, for goodness sake? No, not that.
Happy and Blessed Paschal Feast to all.
Which one’Some of the emergents key leaders most certainly do deny the doctrine of the atonement.
Steve Chalke, view of the atonement, in a book that Brian McLaren endorses, is [On the cross, Christ] “The fact is that the cross isn’t a form of cosmic child abuse—a vengeful Father punishing his Son for an offence he has not even committed. ... such a concept stands in total contradiction to the statement ‘God is love’.”
He further clarified: “”In my view, the real problem with penal substitution (a theory rooted in violence and retributive notions of justice) is its incompatibility, at least as currently taught and understood, with any authentically Christian understanding of the character of God or genuinely Christocentric worldview – given, for instance, Jesus own non-violent, ‘do not return evil for evil’, approach to life.
“Hence my comment, in The Lost Message of Jesus, about the tragedy of reducing God to a ‘cosmic child abuser’. Though the sheer bluntness of my imagery might shock some, in truth, it is only because it is a stark ‘unmasking’ of the violent, pre-Christian thinking behind such a theology.”
McLaren follows suit with this thinking, also denying the doctrine of Hell: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SOUfsX2fbk
Mark Driscoll, theologically conservative but from the Emergent stream, said “I eventually had to distance myself from the Emergent stream of the network because friends like Brian McLaren and Doug Pagitt began pushing a theological agenda that greatly troubled me. Examples include referring to God as a chick, questioning God’s sovereignty over and knowledge of the future, denial of the substitutionary atonement at the cross, a low view of Scripture, and denial of hell...”
Doug Pagitt is another one who is a key leader in this movement but denies the atonement. In their view, Jesus’s sacrifice was there as an example to show us all how to suffer with a smile and the gospel is that we are to go help poor people throughout the world. There are no boundaries that can’t be crossed. There is no theological belief that can’t be done away with. It is perfectly compatible for one to be a Christian and a Buddhist, a Christian and a New Ager, whatever.
And, they are stealing the name “Evangelical”, when in reality they are not evangelical at all but are a bunch of liberal theologians rebelling against Scripture.
The article ascribing guilt by association is not far off base when you dig into what is being taught. Not all emergent leaders will deny the atonement, but they are warm with and endorse those who do.
As far as having a credible understanding of church history, I have already addressed your concern.
As far as the author not understanding what he is talking about, you are wrong. One of the greatest scholars of our time, R. Albert Mohler, writes about the Emergent movement somewhat frequently on his own blog. I would recommend your reading it:
http://www.albertmohler.com/search/index.php?cmd=search&words=emergent&base=all&num=10&sort=score
Right you are Kolo, the atonement theory was a western view of salvation-not eastern. The east never bought into our Lord Jesus dying for our sins. That does make one wonder why that Roman Catholics are divorcing themselves from this view and moving more towards an eastern concept. You must admit that Mad Dawg's comments to Blogger is a bit odd given that Catholics are moving more towards the Orthodox view and disregarding atonement. (I will add that there are many Protestants moving away from the concept of the atonement as well.)
What Merton is talking about isn't a "much older" concept than the atonement. I would agree that it probably was the same age; but I would also add the east had it wrong. That spark of "uncreated light" that we can "experience" cannot be realized without our Lord atoning for our sins.
“The east never bought into our Lord Jesus dying for our sins.”
Oh, that’s not true at all, HD. No Cross, no Resurrection. Its just that we see things somewhat differently. Atonement to a wrathful God is what we don’t buy into. But dying for our sins? We buy into that 100%.
“That spark of “uncreated light” that we can “experience” cannot be realized without our Lord atoning for our sins.”
Change the word “atoning” to “dying” and you’d be right.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.